http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/15815
Anybody heard about this? I can't see how it would be a MORTAL sin.
No more kneeling in church?
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
No more kneeling in church?
That is bizarre, if you can't kneel in church, then that is not the church for you!
No more kneeling in church?
Reminded me of Monty Python
God: "And stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"
God: "And stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"
No more kneeling in church?
I fail to see how kneeling or not kneeling in church could be a mortal sin. I'm sure God has much more important things on His "mind".
In the ancient church and even into the middle ages it was the practice in most churches to stand during the whole serice as seating was not always provided. Eventually it became the practice to put seating in all the churches.
Some churches today recommend standing and others will go with either and whatever personal conscience says.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In the ancient church and even into the middle ages it was the practice in most churches to stand during the whole serice as seating was not always provided. Eventually it became the practice to put seating in all the churches.
Some churches today recommend standing and others will go with either and whatever personal conscience says.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more kneeling in church?
What a truly bizarre thing to get worked up about. You'd think nowadays they would be grateful anybody bothers turning up.
I was brought up in the free church of scotland. I always remember the culture shock as a wee kid going along with the boys brigade ( a militaristic religious youth organisation) with others of my age group (to be strictly accurate I was dragged along) to an interdenominational service at the anglican church. We all thought it was very posh with footstools, cushions on the seats and all the decoration, bits of gold everywhere, then everybody disappeared because they were kneeling, That's when we realised what the footstools were for. very bizarre and bad enough then they all started chanting.
Why would anybody bother with a church that makes such a fuss about ritual
A Southern California Catholic priest is telling his parishioners to stop kneeling at a certain point during the mass or get out of his church.
Always thought it was god's house and open to all.
I was brought up in the free church of scotland. I always remember the culture shock as a wee kid going along with the boys brigade ( a militaristic religious youth organisation) with others of my age group (to be strictly accurate I was dragged along) to an interdenominational service at the anglican church. We all thought it was very posh with footstools, cushions on the seats and all the decoration, bits of gold everywhere, then everybody disappeared because they were kneeling, That's when we realised what the footstools were for. very bizarre and bad enough then they all started chanting.
Why would anybody bother with a church that makes such a fuss about ritual
A Southern California Catholic priest is telling his parishioners to stop kneeling at a certain point during the mass or get out of his church.
Always thought it was god's house and open to all.
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
No more kneeling in church?
*This stuff makes me glad I'm Jewish*;)
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
No more kneeling in church?
gmc:-6
I can only speak for the Anglican Church of Canada. No one here is forced to do either. One can follow the lead of the congregation or do whatever they feel comfortable doing; sit, stand or kneel.
The liturgical service is a very beautiful piece of art. It follows the traditions developed within the early church. Churches today are changing the liturgy into a more modern approach. I personally love the liturgical service. I've tried other forms but like this one best of all.
Others are not comfortable with such a service so we advise them to try another church that might have a service more to their own personal liking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can only speak for the Anglican Church of Canada. No one here is forced to do either. One can follow the lead of the congregation or do whatever they feel comfortable doing; sit, stand or kneel.
The liturgical service is a very beautiful piece of art. It follows the traditions developed within the early church. Churches today are changing the liturgy into a more modern approach. I personally love the liturgical service. I've tried other forms but like this one best of all.
Others are not comfortable with such a service so we advise them to try another church that might have a service more to their own personal liking.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more kneeling in church?
cheranbuster:-6
As a Christian pluralist I am pleased to see someone of the Jewish faith here. Perhaps you could inform us somewhat of your churches practices. I for one am most interested. I do occasionally go on the site "Ask Moses" to ask questions and have been pleased with the reception and the responses from both Rabbis and folks of the Jewish faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As a Christian pluralist I am pleased to see someone of the Jewish faith here. Perhaps you could inform us somewhat of your churches practices. I for one am most interested. I do occasionally go on the site "Ask Moses" to ask questions and have been pleased with the reception and the responses from both Rabbis and folks of the Jewish faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: One can follow the lead of the congregation or do whatever they feel comfortable doing; sit, stand or kneel.For reasons of completeness in this thread I feel I should mention that traditional half-way house of prayer positions, the Methodist Stoop. Not actual kneeling, but sufficiently bent that nobody can really tell unless they stare closely.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No more kneeling in church?
spot:-6
That must be bloody uncomfortable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That must be bloody uncomfortable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: That must be bloody uncomfortable.Your authentic Primitive Wesleyan Methodist would go a long way to be uncomfortable. It's inbred by now. John Wesley purged the Society of backsliders so many times that anyone left to father new generations was a really hard case.
It's where I'm from, you understand.
It's where I'm from, you understand.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No more kneeling in church?
spot wrote: Your authentic Primitive Wesleyan Methodist would go a long way to be uncomfortable. It's inbred by now. John Wesley purged the Society of backsliders so many times that anyone left to father new generations was a really hard case.
It's where I'm from, you understand.
Methodists! Bunch of effete softies. Bet they have cushions in the pews. For real misery you need to look to the free prebytarian churches and especially the wee frees as they are known. Just smiling is frowned upon ( laugh and the devil gets in. You're no put on this earth to be happy are just two of the homiies you can expect to hear). God help you if you speak to a catholic because that will get you excommunicated. Still they seem happy in their misery because they know they are going to heaven and you can only join if you are thoroughly miserable in the first place. Colloquially they are known as the tut tutters due to their habit of going tut tut when they see someone apparently enjoying life.
It's where I'm from, you understand.
Methodists! Bunch of effete softies. Bet they have cushions in the pews. For real misery you need to look to the free prebytarian churches and especially the wee frees as they are known. Just smiling is frowned upon ( laugh and the devil gets in. You're no put on this earth to be happy are just two of the homiies you can expect to hear). God help you if you speak to a catholic because that will get you excommunicated. Still they seem happy in their misery because they know they are going to heaven and you can only join if you are thoroughly miserable in the first place. Colloquially they are known as the tut tutters due to their habit of going tut tut when they see someone apparently enjoying life.
No more kneeling in church?
gmc:-6
May God preserve us from their like. What a miserable way to spend one's life. To each his own I suppose.
I think old Ian Paisley must be a member of that lot. He is disgusting as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
May God preserve us from their like. What a miserable way to spend one's life. To each his own I suppose.
I think old Ian Paisley must be a member of that lot. He is disgusting as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: May God preserve us from their like. What a miserable way to spend one's life. To each his own I suppose.It's really strange, but from the inside of a church like that there's a dry comfort. I've always appreciated its attractions. It doesn't have to be bigoted as Paisley's crew are. Those outside are doomed, yes, but that's not to mock at them - everyone inside thinks he's personally doomed too, whatever happens to the others, so there's a kinship.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No more kneeling in church?
spot wrote: It's really strange, but from the inside of a church like that there's a dry comfort. I've always appreciated its attractions. It doesn't have to be bigoted as Paisley's crew are. Those outside are doomed, yes, but that's not to mock at them - everyone inside thinks he's personally doomed too, whatever happens to the others, so there's a kinship.
I think it's a cop out. The reality of seeing the worth of others and of finding your own place in the world is hard for some, better to hide in a church and shout abuse at the world safe behind the walls of santimony.
I think it's a cop out. The reality of seeing the worth of others and of finding your own place in the world is hard for some, better to hide in a church and shout abuse at the world safe behind the walls of santimony.
No more kneeling in church?
valerie wrote: http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/15815
Anybody heard about this? I can't see how it would be a MORTAL sin.Information gathered from some other sources seems to indicate that Fr. Tran has long had a reputation as sort of a 'loose cannon' and should probably try to avoid making provocative remarks.
Here is his actual statement - just scroll down to the paragraph in italics:
http://www.rcbo.org/highlights/images/p ... anding.pdf
Note that Fr. Tran himself mentions nothing about standing or kneeling, only that disobedience to the bishop and disregard for approved norms within the liturgy are a serious matter. The remarks seem to be aimed more at his fellow clergy than at the congregation.
But then, heck, that wouldn't make as interesting a news item.
Anybody heard about this? I can't see how it would be a MORTAL sin.Information gathered from some other sources seems to indicate that Fr. Tran has long had a reputation as sort of a 'loose cannon' and should probably try to avoid making provocative remarks.
Here is his actual statement - just scroll down to the paragraph in italics:
http://www.rcbo.org/highlights/images/p ... anding.pdf
Note that Fr. Tran himself mentions nothing about standing or kneeling, only that disobedience to the bishop and disregard for approved norms within the liturgy are a serious matter. The remarks seem to be aimed more at his fellow clergy than at the congregation.
But then, heck, that wouldn't make as interesting a news item.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
cherandbuster wrote: *This stuff makes me glad I'm Jewish*;)
I belong to the Church of England because it's the one God belongs to.
I belong to the Church of England because it's the one God belongs to.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: Information gathered from some other sources seems to indicate that Fr. Tran has long had a reputation as sort of a 'loose cannon' and should probably try to avoid making provocative remarks.
.
I don't think that he was being provocative. He was addressing a point of principle and his reasoning seems to be fairly watertight in that even the smallest detail of the mass is a matter for Rome and the Church authorities and not for individual members of the congregation. Presumably to rebel against the authority of the church is to rebel against Rome and, therefore, God himself which is a mortal sin.
What, as a matter of interest, is the argument being put forward by the laity who want the change.
.
I don't think that he was being provocative. He was addressing a point of principle and his reasoning seems to be fairly watertight in that even the smallest detail of the mass is a matter for Rome and the Church authorities and not for individual members of the congregation. Presumably to rebel against the authority of the church is to rebel against Rome and, therefore, God himself which is a mortal sin.
What, as a matter of interest, is the argument being put forward by the laity who want the change.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: I belong to the Church of England because it's the one God belongs to.Are you implying that God sanctioned Henry VIII in divorcing or murdering wives at his whim? If not, why does the division between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism continue, or to put it another way, why would God abandon the Church He founded over such a mundane matter as a marital annulment?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: Are you implying that God sanctioned Henry VIII in divorcing or murdering wives at his whim? If not, why does the division between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism continue, or to put it another way, why would God abandon the Church He founded over such a mundane matter as a marital annulment?
Only God knows what God sanctioned but I should imagine that Henry acted more from his own motives than those from a higher plane.
I am not sure that the RC is actually the Church that God founded. The church that sprang from the disciples and apostles gelled into the Christian Church but it was not for many years afterwards that the RC church settled as the formal institution we know today. Many of its practices are of a relatively recent design which is quite permissble if you believe that the Pope is God's viceroy on earth.
Henry in fact did not create the Church of England - that fell to Elizabeth for political reasons - but removed the Pope as head of the Church so far as England was concerned and took the mantle for himself. Whatever the motives, it eliminated the possibility of split responsibilty by combining church and state. It is interesting to note that there was no great revolt by the population at this, quite momentous, change.
The differences between the two churches can be divided into those of loyalty and those of faith. We - English - find it better to have one point of authority, the state, rather than two; the state and the church. If the two latter disagree on a particular policy then it becomes very difficult for the subjects to know whom they should follow.
On the matter it liturgy, one could write a book. The RC Church believes in communion to God through intercession. We believe in a more direct approach (not unassociated with a suspicion that not all the Saints were ever flesh and blood). Transubstantiation is an insuperable difficulty - the eating of flesh and blood is cannibalism however you dress it up - as is Papal infallibility.
I don't think the two churches are ever likely to come together, nor do I think it desirable.
Bill
Only God knows what God sanctioned but I should imagine that Henry acted more from his own motives than those from a higher plane.
I am not sure that the RC is actually the Church that God founded. The church that sprang from the disciples and apostles gelled into the Christian Church but it was not for many years afterwards that the RC church settled as the formal institution we know today. Many of its practices are of a relatively recent design which is quite permissble if you believe that the Pope is God's viceroy on earth.
Henry in fact did not create the Church of England - that fell to Elizabeth for political reasons - but removed the Pope as head of the Church so far as England was concerned and took the mantle for himself. Whatever the motives, it eliminated the possibility of split responsibilty by combining church and state. It is interesting to note that there was no great revolt by the population at this, quite momentous, change.
The differences between the two churches can be divided into those of loyalty and those of faith. We - English - find it better to have one point of authority, the state, rather than two; the state and the church. If the two latter disagree on a particular policy then it becomes very difficult for the subjects to know whom they should follow.
On the matter it liturgy, one could write a book. The RC Church believes in communion to God through intercession. We believe in a more direct approach (not unassociated with a suspicion that not all the Saints were ever flesh and blood). Transubstantiation is an insuperable difficulty - the eating of flesh and blood is cannibalism however you dress it up - as is Papal infallibility.
I don't think the two churches are ever likely to come together, nor do I think it desirable.
Bill
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: 1. Only God knows what God sanctioned but I should imagine that Henry acted more from his own motives than those from a higher plane.
2. I am not sure that the RC is actually the Church that God founded.
3. The church that sprang from the disciples and apostles gelled into the Christian Church but it was not for many years afterwards that the RC church settled as the formal institution we know today.
4. Many of its practices are of a relatively recent design which is quite permissble if you believe that the Pope is God's viceroy on earth.
5. Henry in fact did not create the Church of England - that fell to Elizabeth for political reasons - but removed the Pope as head of the Church so far as England was concerned and took the mantle for himself.
6. Whatever the motives, it eliminated the possibility of split responsibilty by combining church and state.
7. It is interesting to note that there was no great revolt by the population at this, quite momentous, change.
8. The differences between the two churches can be divided into those of loyalty and those of faith. We - English - find it better to have one point of authority, the state, rather than two; the state and the church. If the two latter disagree on a particular policy then it becomes very difficult for the subjects to know whom they should follow.
9. On the matter it liturgy, one could write a book. The RC Church believes in communion to God through intercession. We believe in a more direct approach (not unassociated with a suspicion that not all the Saints were ever flesh and blood).
10. Transubstantiation is an insuperable difficulty - the eating of flesh and blood is cannibalism however you dress it up...
11. - as is Papal infallibility.
12. I don't think the two churches are ever likely to come together, nor do I think it desirable.
BillWell, several points, and I won't be able to reply further today, because I have students waiting, but this might become a productive discussion and perhaps should become a new thread before going much further. Ted, the leading Anglican here, will no doubt contribute as well.
1. I should imagine.
2. But then, you have no choice, in order to claim legitimacy as a Protestant you have to state that. What is the basis?
3. Nonsense! Except for the East-West division, which owed more to geography than doctrine, the Church remained virtually intact until the so-called 'Reformation'.
4. Well, I'm not sure which 'practices' you mean, nor that such 'practices' originated with the pope. Most go back to the earliest centuries of Christianíty. Maybe you could be more specific and name some 'practices' that you consider 'recent'.
5 & 6. Pure semantics. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that's really not significant.
7. Revolting against a revolt! The ones that did 'revolt', which is to say, the ones who remained loyal to the Church, were killed, which is probably why so few 'revolted'.
8. Again, a rather meaningless argument, as modern England guarantees religious freedom. Englishmen can choose whatever religion they please without being disloyal to the crown.
Am I to assume that you are an Englishman living in Wales? It has nothing to do with the discussion, I'm just curious. I was not aware that the Anglican Church was the state Church of Wales.
9. The RC Church believes in communion with God directly, through prayer and the sacraments, and also in the communion of saints, one of the articles of both the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, on which (along with the Athanasian) both religions are based.
10. Insuperable? Or do you mean insurmountable? In any case, what is the problem? Catholics and Anglicans both believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist because He said that He would be. With regard to cannibalism, I suggest that you read Christ's words in John's gospel, where He assures us that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is essential to salvation, as much so as Baptism, and that those who do not thus eat and drink have no life in them and will not be resurrected. If that's 'dressing it up', then I guess that's what Christ is doing in those verses.
11. Papal infallibility is cannibalism? Now you're being ridiculous.
12. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but you are also surely aware that there are federated Roman Catholic-Anglican/Episcopalian congregations. I belonged to one myself in the US state of Virginia, as did, or does, Ted in Canada. They don't seem to share your opinion here.
2. I am not sure that the RC is actually the Church that God founded.
3. The church that sprang from the disciples and apostles gelled into the Christian Church but it was not for many years afterwards that the RC church settled as the formal institution we know today.
4. Many of its practices are of a relatively recent design which is quite permissble if you believe that the Pope is God's viceroy on earth.
5. Henry in fact did not create the Church of England - that fell to Elizabeth for political reasons - but removed the Pope as head of the Church so far as England was concerned and took the mantle for himself.
6. Whatever the motives, it eliminated the possibility of split responsibilty by combining church and state.
7. It is interesting to note that there was no great revolt by the population at this, quite momentous, change.
8. The differences between the two churches can be divided into those of loyalty and those of faith. We - English - find it better to have one point of authority, the state, rather than two; the state and the church. If the two latter disagree on a particular policy then it becomes very difficult for the subjects to know whom they should follow.
9. On the matter it liturgy, one could write a book. The RC Church believes in communion to God through intercession. We believe in a more direct approach (not unassociated with a suspicion that not all the Saints were ever flesh and blood).
10. Transubstantiation is an insuperable difficulty - the eating of flesh and blood is cannibalism however you dress it up...
11. - as is Papal infallibility.
12. I don't think the two churches are ever likely to come together, nor do I think it desirable.
BillWell, several points, and I won't be able to reply further today, because I have students waiting, but this might become a productive discussion and perhaps should become a new thread before going much further. Ted, the leading Anglican here, will no doubt contribute as well.
1. I should imagine.
2. But then, you have no choice, in order to claim legitimacy as a Protestant you have to state that. What is the basis?
3. Nonsense! Except for the East-West division, which owed more to geography than doctrine, the Church remained virtually intact until the so-called 'Reformation'.
4. Well, I'm not sure which 'practices' you mean, nor that such 'practices' originated with the pope. Most go back to the earliest centuries of Christianíty. Maybe you could be more specific and name some 'practices' that you consider 'recent'.
5 & 6. Pure semantics. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that's really not significant.
7. Revolting against a revolt! The ones that did 'revolt', which is to say, the ones who remained loyal to the Church, were killed, which is probably why so few 'revolted'.
8. Again, a rather meaningless argument, as modern England guarantees religious freedom. Englishmen can choose whatever religion they please without being disloyal to the crown.
Am I to assume that you are an Englishman living in Wales? It has nothing to do with the discussion, I'm just curious. I was not aware that the Anglican Church was the state Church of Wales.
9. The RC Church believes in communion with God directly, through prayer and the sacraments, and also in the communion of saints, one of the articles of both the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, on which (along with the Athanasian) both religions are based.
10. Insuperable? Or do you mean insurmountable? In any case, what is the problem? Catholics and Anglicans both believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharist because He said that He would be. With regard to cannibalism, I suggest that you read Christ's words in John's gospel, where He assures us that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is essential to salvation, as much so as Baptism, and that those who do not thus eat and drink have no life in them and will not be resurrected. If that's 'dressing it up', then I guess that's what Christ is doing in those verses.
11. Papal infallibility is cannibalism? Now you're being ridiculous.
12. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but you are also surely aware that there are federated Roman Catholic-Anglican/Episcopalian congregations. I belonged to one myself in the US state of Virginia, as did, or does, Ted in Canada. They don't seem to share your opinion here.
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: 11. Papal infallibility is cannibalism? Now you're being ridiculous.Really, Bronwen, why do you do that? William wrote in the preceding paragraph "Transubstantiation is an insuperable difficulty - the eating of flesh and blood is cannibalism however you dress it up... " and there's no possible way to read "as is Papal infallibility" other than "Papal infallibility is an insuperable difficulty". You're just avoiding the blatant issue by deliberately mangling a subclause that nobody could get wrong by accident. Papal infallibility is a reasonable obstacle in any discussion of this issue. Why should it not be?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
You are not suggesting, surely, that the Church that existed in, say, AD50 was a recognisable form of the RC church.
To believe in God it is not necessary to believe in matters such as the papal succession nor in many of the other assumptions that the RC church has made in the past 2,000 years. If they assist in strengthening one's personal ciommitment, all well and good but many find them a distraction that lies between them and truth.
The Church of Wales is part of the Anglican communion.
When Christ referred to his followers drinking his blood, etc, I cannot believe he meant it literally. What would be the point?
Transubstantiation means that at the precise moment of swallowing, the wine and wafer are changed into blood and flesh and were it possible to analyse them scientifically at that moment in time, the analysis would show blood and flesh. I cannot accept that this actually happens. Nor do I see a need to.
I said Papal infalibility is an insuperable difficulty.
If everyone shared my opinions there would be little point in having debating groups. I believe that ecumenicalism is an unnecessary diversion.
To believe in God it is not necessary to believe in matters such as the papal succession nor in many of the other assumptions that the RC church has made in the past 2,000 years. If they assist in strengthening one's personal ciommitment, all well and good but many find them a distraction that lies between them and truth.
The Church of Wales is part of the Anglican communion.
When Christ referred to his followers drinking his blood, etc, I cannot believe he meant it literally. What would be the point?
Transubstantiation means that at the precise moment of swallowing, the wine and wafer are changed into blood and flesh and were it possible to analyse them scientifically at that moment in time, the analysis would show blood and flesh. I cannot accept that this actually happens. Nor do I see a need to.
I said Papal infalibility is an insuperable difficulty.
If everyone shared my opinions there would be little point in having debating groups. I believe that ecumenicalism is an unnecessary diversion.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: 8. Again, a rather meaningless argument, as modern England guarantees religious freedom. Englishmen can choose whatever religion they please without being disloyal to the crown.
.
Not necessarily. What would have the position of the individual have been as an English Roman Catholic and a member of the Armed Forces if the Vatican had issued an edict in support of Argentina during the Falklands Campaign. That catholic soldier would have to decide whether to serve his Queen or Church. If he chose the latter then he could well be guilty of disloyalty to the crown.
On the topic of : 'Revolting against a revolt! The ones that did 'revolt', which is to say, the ones who remained loyal to the Church, were killed, which is probably why so few 'revolted'. '
If you stooped to a little history you will find that the state did not maintain a jehad against individual Catholics. Some of the titled families who remained Catholic were viewed with considerable suspicion because of the scope of their influence and others were found guilty of treason. However in the tooing and froing of the late Tudor period the numbers killed on both sides balanced at about 600 each.
.
Not necessarily. What would have the position of the individual have been as an English Roman Catholic and a member of the Armed Forces if the Vatican had issued an edict in support of Argentina during the Falklands Campaign. That catholic soldier would have to decide whether to serve his Queen or Church. If he chose the latter then he could well be guilty of disloyalty to the crown.
On the topic of : 'Revolting against a revolt! The ones that did 'revolt', which is to say, the ones who remained loyal to the Church, were killed, which is probably why so few 'revolted'. '
If you stooped to a little history you will find that the state did not maintain a jehad against individual Catholics. Some of the titled families who remained Catholic were viewed with considerable suspicion because of the scope of their influence and others were found guilty of treason. However in the tooing and froing of the late Tudor period the numbers killed on both sides balanced at about 600 each.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: 1. You are not suggesting, surely, that the Church that existed in, say, AD50 was a recognisable form of the RC church.
2. To believe in God it is not necessary to believe in matters such as the papal succession nor in many of the other assumptions that the RC church has made in the past 2,000 years.
3. If they assist in strengthening one's personal ciommitment, all well and good but many find them a distraction that lies between them and truth.
4. The Church of Wales is part of the Anglican communion.
5. When Christ referred to his followers drinking his blood, etc, I cannot believe he meant it literally. What would be the point?
6. Transubstantiation means that at the precise moment of swallowing, the wine and wafer are changed into blood and flesh and were it possible to analyse them scientifically at that moment in time, the analysis would show blood and flesh. I cannot accept that this actually happens. Nor do I see a need to.
7. I said Papal infalibility is an insuperable difficulty.
8. If everyone shared my opinions there would be little point in having debating groups.
9. I believe that ecumenicalism is an unnecessary diversion.1. YOU are not suggesting, surely, that the Church that existed in, say, AD50 was a recognisable form of the Church of England. So I guess we are even, and I'm assuming that it's a rhetorical question, because as an Anglican you should know the answer as well as I do, which is, it was the same (as now) and it was different.
It was the same because the sacraments had all been instituted by Christ and were being administered to the faithful by His apostles and their ordained successors. It was the same because Peter's primacy was beyond question, and he would remain Christ's appointed vicar until his martyrdom in Rome nearly two decades later. They were the same because they regarded Christ as the essence of the Church and, as members of that Church, they became part of His mystical Body and thus (especially through the Eucharist) shared in His divinity as He had sahred in their humanity. And there were many other similarities.
It was different because the Gospels had not been written and Christianity was still mainly Jewish, with Jewish Christians expecting an IMMINENT second coming. And there were also many other differences.
2. Of course not. Membership in Christ's community involves much more than belief in God. It seems to me, though, that between the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans, it is the latter whose community is built on assumptions.
3. To me, the gap between belief and truth lies in the errors of the so-called 'reformers', each with his own bastardized version of Christianity.
4. I realize that. So is, I believe, the Church of Ireland. My understanding, however, names aside, is that the Welsh are mainly Congregationalists. That may not, however, be the 'state' church as Anglicanism is in England.
5. He meant it MYSTICALLY. He said that His real divinity was present in the Eucharist and that the apostles should perform the consecration as He did in His memory. That is what both Roman Catholics and Anglicans, as well as Eastern Orthodox, do when they celebrate the Eucharist.
6. Well, I do not know your source here but it is not a Catholic source, and this is a good example of how many of the supposed disagreements that Protestants have with Catholicism are spurious, that is, based on false beliefs. So I can understand why you cannot accept what you describe.
The bread and wine are consecrated when the celebrant blesses them and repeats Christ's words, ('This is my body...my blood') and they remained consecrated until consumed or until no longer recognizable as bread and wine. It has nothing to do with swallowing or with 'appearances', which would include the chemical structure.
7. Well, that was ambiguous as originally stated, but the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit guides it in dogmatic matters, and when its beliefs are compared with some of the nonsense being preached as 'God's truth' in some of the more 'fundamentalist' Protestant denoms, which have no hierarchy or accountability, one can surely see that some organization and regulation is required, and both Anglicanism and various of the 'mainline' Protestant churches are also hierarchical. Can you give some examples of papal proclamations which meet the standards of infallibility that you believe to be false?
8. OK.
9. Is anyone forcing you to espouse it?
2. To believe in God it is not necessary to believe in matters such as the papal succession nor in many of the other assumptions that the RC church has made in the past 2,000 years.
3. If they assist in strengthening one's personal ciommitment, all well and good but many find them a distraction that lies between them and truth.
4. The Church of Wales is part of the Anglican communion.
5. When Christ referred to his followers drinking his blood, etc, I cannot believe he meant it literally. What would be the point?
6. Transubstantiation means that at the precise moment of swallowing, the wine and wafer are changed into blood and flesh and were it possible to analyse them scientifically at that moment in time, the analysis would show blood and flesh. I cannot accept that this actually happens. Nor do I see a need to.
7. I said Papal infalibility is an insuperable difficulty.
8. If everyone shared my opinions there would be little point in having debating groups.
9. I believe that ecumenicalism is an unnecessary diversion.1. YOU are not suggesting, surely, that the Church that existed in, say, AD50 was a recognisable form of the Church of England. So I guess we are even, and I'm assuming that it's a rhetorical question, because as an Anglican you should know the answer as well as I do, which is, it was the same (as now) and it was different.
It was the same because the sacraments had all been instituted by Christ and were being administered to the faithful by His apostles and their ordained successors. It was the same because Peter's primacy was beyond question, and he would remain Christ's appointed vicar until his martyrdom in Rome nearly two decades later. They were the same because they regarded Christ as the essence of the Church and, as members of that Church, they became part of His mystical Body and thus (especially through the Eucharist) shared in His divinity as He had sahred in their humanity. And there were many other similarities.
It was different because the Gospels had not been written and Christianity was still mainly Jewish, with Jewish Christians expecting an IMMINENT second coming. And there were also many other differences.
2. Of course not. Membership in Christ's community involves much more than belief in God. It seems to me, though, that between the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans, it is the latter whose community is built on assumptions.
3. To me, the gap between belief and truth lies in the errors of the so-called 'reformers', each with his own bastardized version of Christianity.
4. I realize that. So is, I believe, the Church of Ireland. My understanding, however, names aside, is that the Welsh are mainly Congregationalists. That may not, however, be the 'state' church as Anglicanism is in England.
5. He meant it MYSTICALLY. He said that His real divinity was present in the Eucharist and that the apostles should perform the consecration as He did in His memory. That is what both Roman Catholics and Anglicans, as well as Eastern Orthodox, do when they celebrate the Eucharist.
6. Well, I do not know your source here but it is not a Catholic source, and this is a good example of how many of the supposed disagreements that Protestants have with Catholicism are spurious, that is, based on false beliefs. So I can understand why you cannot accept what you describe.
The bread and wine are consecrated when the celebrant blesses them and repeats Christ's words, ('This is my body...my blood') and they remained consecrated until consumed or until no longer recognizable as bread and wine. It has nothing to do with swallowing or with 'appearances', which would include the chemical structure.
7. Well, that was ambiguous as originally stated, but the Church has always believed that the Holy Spirit guides it in dogmatic matters, and when its beliefs are compared with some of the nonsense being preached as 'God's truth' in some of the more 'fundamentalist' Protestant denoms, which have no hierarchy or accountability, one can surely see that some organization and regulation is required, and both Anglicanism and various of the 'mainline' Protestant churches are also hierarchical. Can you give some examples of papal proclamations which meet the standards of infallibility that you believe to be false?
8. OK.
9. Is anyone forcing you to espouse it?
No more kneeling in church?
spot wrote: Really, Bronwen, why do you do that? I only do it when I'm in my 'crabby bitch' mode.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: Not necessarily. What would have the position of the individual have been as an English Roman Catholic and a member of the Armed Forces if the Vatican had issued an edict in support of Argentina during the Falklands Campaign. That catholic soldier would have to decide whether to serve his Queen or Church. If he chose the latter then he could well be guilty of disloyalty to the crown.You are either intentionally grasping at straws or extremely ignorant of the workings of the Catholic Church.
In the first place, I am not aware that the Vatican issues 'edicts', but that is merely a matter of semantics. The Vatican is not in the business of supporting one nation over another in civil conflicts (unless, I suppose, the Church itself were directly threatened), nor would CASUAL pronouncements by the pope be binding on Catholics; after all, the pope, besides being earthly head of the Chruch, is also a head of state and consequently a diplomat. Such imagined pronouncements would far exceed his authority. Can you give an example of such a pronouncement in modern times? I certainly can't think of one.
In the first place, I am not aware that the Vatican issues 'edicts', but that is merely a matter of semantics. The Vatican is not in the business of supporting one nation over another in civil conflicts (unless, I suppose, the Church itself were directly threatened), nor would CASUAL pronouncements by the pope be binding on Catholics; after all, the pope, besides being earthly head of the Chruch, is also a head of state and consequently a diplomat. Such imagined pronouncements would far exceed his authority. Can you give an example of such a pronouncement in modern times? I certainly can't think of one.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
1 Even if it were to be accepted that the line of descent from Christ to the present day is pure, the fact remains that the RC Church has been shaped by men over the course of time. To suggest that whatever decisions they took were the embodiment of God's will is an extraordinary claim. There have been some pretty dubious Popes over the years and on at least one instance, more than one at once. (I have nothing against Italians but is it not curious that Italian Papacies outnumber the rest by an extraordinary ratio. Not that Italians have done a great deal to set the world on fire. Obviously the hand of God at work............)
2. What assumptions is the Cof E guilty of?
3. Apart from the RC Church, most of the established churches in Britain differ in detail only.
4. The dissenting movement is particularly strong in Wales.
5 & 6. It is the Protestant Church's belief that he meant it mystically. The blood and flesh parallel that I drew was given to me by several members of the RC clergy. That is why they call it transubstantiation.
7. It is a long way from believing that one is guided occasionally by the Holy Spirit to actually proclaiming it as part of one's corporate structure. Does God not guide the Church of England and the Methodists from time to time. Does He not hear and respond to their prayers?
8. Is it necessary for me to be forced into a position before giving an opinion?
2. What assumptions is the Cof E guilty of?
3. Apart from the RC Church, most of the established churches in Britain differ in detail only.
4. The dissenting movement is particularly strong in Wales.
5 & 6. It is the Protestant Church's belief that he meant it mystically. The blood and flesh parallel that I drew was given to me by several members of the RC clergy. That is why they call it transubstantiation.
7. It is a long way from believing that one is guided occasionally by the Holy Spirit to actually proclaiming it as part of one's corporate structure. Does God not guide the Church of England and the Methodists from time to time. Does He not hear and respond to their prayers?
8. Is it necessary for me to be forced into a position before giving an opinion?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: You are either intentionally grasping at straws or extremely ignorant of the workings of the Catholic Church.
If you want me to continue this debate, you had better amend your manners. It is not mannerly to tell your oponents they are ignorant, even if they are. You are supposed to demonstrate the fact by force of argument.
I have notice this trait with you elsewhere: if you seem to be losing the argument you respond with insults. There are times when your style of reason has all the subtlety of the Jackboot and none of the finesse of logic.
WE
(By the way, people don't grasp straws, they clutch them. Don't mix metaphors).
If you want me to continue this debate, you had better amend your manners. It is not mannerly to tell your oponents they are ignorant, even if they are. You are supposed to demonstrate the fact by force of argument.
I have notice this trait with you elsewhere: if you seem to be losing the argument you respond with insults. There are times when your style of reason has all the subtlety of the Jackboot and none of the finesse of logic.
WE
(By the way, people don't grasp straws, they clutch them. Don't mix metaphors).
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: In the first place, I am not aware that the Vatican issues 'edicts', but that is merely a matter of semantics. The Vatican is not in the business of supporting one nation over another in civil conflicts (unless, I suppose, the Church itself were directly threatened), nor would CASUAL pronouncements by the pope be binding on Catholics; after all, the pope, besides being earthly head of the Chruch, is also a head of state and consequently a diplomat. Such imagined pronouncements would far exceed his authority. Can you give an example of such a pronouncement in modern times? I certainly can't think of one.
Surely the Vatican issues rules - whatever you want to call them - from time to time. Humanae Vitae, for example. Vatican Council II and the ban on the Tridentine Mass, for another. There have been instances since the reformation where the Vatican has supported one state at the expense of another. Spain in 1588, for example. The exeption seems to have been in the last war when there was a deafening silence from the Vatican over certain goings-on in Central Europe by a member of the RC congregation.
I don't think Christ saw himself as a diplomat. He spoke out directly and took direct action when the need arose. One might have expected his anointed successor to walk the same path.
Surely the Vatican issues rules - whatever you want to call them - from time to time. Humanae Vitae, for example. Vatican Council II and the ban on the Tridentine Mass, for another. There have been instances since the reformation where the Vatican has supported one state at the expense of another. Spain in 1588, for example. The exeption seems to have been in the last war when there was a deafening silence from the Vatican over certain goings-on in Central Europe by a member of the RC congregation.
I don't think Christ saw himself as a diplomat. He spoke out directly and took direct action when the need arose. One might have expected his anointed successor to walk the same path.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: 1a. Even if it were to be accepted that the line of descent from Christ to the present day is pure, the fact remains that the RC Church has been shaped by men over the course of time.
1b. To suggest that whatever decisions they took were the embodiment of God's will is an extraordinary claim.
1c. There have been some pretty dubious Popes over the years and on at least one instance, more than one at once.
1d. I have nothing against Italians but is it not curious that Italian Papacies outnumber the rest by an extraordinary ratio.
2. What assumptions is the Cof E guilty of?
3. Apart from the RC Church, most of the established churches in Britain differ in detail only.
4. The dissenting movement is particularly strong in Wales.
5 & 6. It is the Protestant Church's belief that he meant it mystically. The blood and flesh parallel that I drew was given to me by several members of the RC clergy. That is why they call it transubstantiation.
7. It is a long way from believing that one is guided occasionally by the Holy Spirit to actually proclaiming it as part of one's corporate structure. Does God not guide the Church of England and the Methodists from time to time. Does He not hear and respond to their prayers?
8. If you want me to continue this debate, you had better amend your manners. It is not mannerly to tell your oponents they are ignorant, even if they are. You are supposed to demonstrate the fact by force of argument.
9. I have notice this trait with you elsewhere: if you seem to be losing the argument you respond with insults. There are times when your style of reason has all the subtlety of the Jackboot and none of the finesse of logic.
WE
10. (By the way, people don't grasp straws, they clutch them. Don't mix metaphors).
11. Surely the Vatican issues rules - whatever you want to call them - from time to time. Humanae Vitae, for example. Vatican Council II and the ban on the Tridentine Mass, for another.
12. There have been instances since the reformation where the Vatican has supported one state at the expense of another. Spain in 1588, for example.
13. The exeption seems to have been in the last war when there was a deafening silence from the Vatican over certain goings-on in Central Europe by a member of the RC congregation.
14. I don't think Christ saw himself as a diplomat. He spoke out directly and took direct action when the need arose. One might have expected his anointed successor to walk the same path. Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post.
1a. If it WERE TO BE accepted? LOL! At what point do you believe it to be IMpure?
1b. Who has suggested that? Once again, you are confusing dogma with administration. That the pope, in administering Church affairs, asks the Lord for guidance I do not doubt.
1c. True and False. There have been bad popes who were nevertheless duly elected, never more than one at a time, and there have been pretenders who were not, sometimes several at a time.
1d. I'm not sure of the actual ratio, I never counted, but you may well be correct. And...? Why do you think that is? Could the fact that the Church's headquarters lie within Italy be a factor?
2. Well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it. That wanting to dump your wife in order to marry some tart is grounds for starting your own religion!
3 & 4. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but OK. In any case, Congregationalism is, I believe, closer to Presbyterianism in origin.
5 & 6. It is MOST of the Protestant Churches' belief that He meant it SYMBOLICALLY, which is to say, they do not believe in the Real Prsence as Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans do, BUT there's a bit more to it than that, because, in their churches it IS merely symbolic, having lost valid orders and valid sacraments.
I wasn't arguing with the parallels, the bread and wine are parallel to the flesh and blood respectively. It is not necessary to receive both kinds in order to receive Christ's real presence. I believe, however, that you misunderstood them with regard to when the Real Presence begins (at the consecration, not at swallowing) and the 'accidentals' or 'appearances', which would include not only the physical appearance but the chemical makeup. It is really pointless to try to rationalize the Real Presence scientifically; we believe that Christ is really present because He promised us that He would be. It's not something the Church simply made up.
7. The guidance is not occasional but ongoing. I won't even attempt to guess to what extent heretical churches are guided. That is between them and the HS.
8. I frankly don't care whether it continues or not. Informing someone that s/he is 'ignorant of' a particular fact or set of facts is not insulting. You are either too thin-skinned or simply trying to be disagreeable.
9. That has nothing to do with this discussion, but I think if you will look back 'elsewhere' you will see that either (a) I was the first to be attacked and I defended myself in kind, or (b) the matter was so obviously fatuous (such as another poster's recent assertion that the great European democracies have begun abandoning freedom in order to surrender to, or fall in line behind, the Islamic terrorists) that nothing other than comtempt is warranted. And by the way, your continuing to make derogatory Germanic references is quite silly and childish.
10. Brits ask the boss for a RISE in pay, Americans ask him/her for a RAISE. Americans do not 'grasp' straws, they 'grasp AT' them, which is, I think, what I said. If Brits CLUTCH or CLUTCH AT them, fine, the idea is that, metaphoically at least, a drowning person will try anything to survive, no matter how nearly hopeless, such as grasping at a floating straw.
11. Well, what I think you're referring to is that the pope issues encyclicals, which Catholics obviously accept as authoritative. These do not, however, involve dogma, which is the only area in which infallibility, the Church believes, is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Vatican II was a Church council, not a 'rule', and the Tridentine Mass is still used in certain circumstances.
12. I said, '...in modern times...' I believe.
13. As I asked in 1d, why do you think that was? Could the fact that the Vatican was surrounded by a Fascist state have been a factor?
14. As Christians, we are all supposed to imitate Christ. That is, indeed, the very essence of Christianity. Unlike the pope, however, we do not have the responsibility for administering the Church. And by the way, the pope is elected, not annointed.
1b. To suggest that whatever decisions they took were the embodiment of God's will is an extraordinary claim.
1c. There have been some pretty dubious Popes over the years and on at least one instance, more than one at once.
1d. I have nothing against Italians but is it not curious that Italian Papacies outnumber the rest by an extraordinary ratio.
2. What assumptions is the Cof E guilty of?
3. Apart from the RC Church, most of the established churches in Britain differ in detail only.
4. The dissenting movement is particularly strong in Wales.
5 & 6. It is the Protestant Church's belief that he meant it mystically. The blood and flesh parallel that I drew was given to me by several members of the RC clergy. That is why they call it transubstantiation.
7. It is a long way from believing that one is guided occasionally by the Holy Spirit to actually proclaiming it as part of one's corporate structure. Does God not guide the Church of England and the Methodists from time to time. Does He not hear and respond to their prayers?
8. If you want me to continue this debate, you had better amend your manners. It is not mannerly to tell your oponents they are ignorant, even if they are. You are supposed to demonstrate the fact by force of argument.
9. I have notice this trait with you elsewhere: if you seem to be losing the argument you respond with insults. There are times when your style of reason has all the subtlety of the Jackboot and none of the finesse of logic.
WE
10. (By the way, people don't grasp straws, they clutch them. Don't mix metaphors).
11. Surely the Vatican issues rules - whatever you want to call them - from time to time. Humanae Vitae, for example. Vatican Council II and the ban on the Tridentine Mass, for another.
12. There have been instances since the reformation where the Vatican has supported one state at the expense of another. Spain in 1588, for example.
13. The exeption seems to have been in the last war when there was a deafening silence from the Vatican over certain goings-on in Central Europe by a member of the RC congregation.
14. I don't think Christ saw himself as a diplomat. He spoke out directly and took direct action when the need arose. One might have expected his anointed successor to walk the same path. Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post.
1a. If it WERE TO BE accepted? LOL! At what point do you believe it to be IMpure?
1b. Who has suggested that? Once again, you are confusing dogma with administration. That the pope, in administering Church affairs, asks the Lord for guidance I do not doubt.
1c. True and False. There have been bad popes who were nevertheless duly elected, never more than one at a time, and there have been pretenders who were not, sometimes several at a time.
1d. I'm not sure of the actual ratio, I never counted, but you may well be correct. And...? Why do you think that is? Could the fact that the Church's headquarters lie within Italy be a factor?
2. Well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it. That wanting to dump your wife in order to marry some tart is grounds for starting your own religion!
3 & 4. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but OK. In any case, Congregationalism is, I believe, closer to Presbyterianism in origin.
5 & 6. It is MOST of the Protestant Churches' belief that He meant it SYMBOLICALLY, which is to say, they do not believe in the Real Prsence as Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans do, BUT there's a bit more to it than that, because, in their churches it IS merely symbolic, having lost valid orders and valid sacraments.
I wasn't arguing with the parallels, the bread and wine are parallel to the flesh and blood respectively. It is not necessary to receive both kinds in order to receive Christ's real presence. I believe, however, that you misunderstood them with regard to when the Real Presence begins (at the consecration, not at swallowing) and the 'accidentals' or 'appearances', which would include not only the physical appearance but the chemical makeup. It is really pointless to try to rationalize the Real Presence scientifically; we believe that Christ is really present because He promised us that He would be. It's not something the Church simply made up.
7. The guidance is not occasional but ongoing. I won't even attempt to guess to what extent heretical churches are guided. That is between them and the HS.
8. I frankly don't care whether it continues or not. Informing someone that s/he is 'ignorant of' a particular fact or set of facts is not insulting. You are either too thin-skinned or simply trying to be disagreeable.
9. That has nothing to do with this discussion, but I think if you will look back 'elsewhere' you will see that either (a) I was the first to be attacked and I defended myself in kind, or (b) the matter was so obviously fatuous (such as another poster's recent assertion that the great European democracies have begun abandoning freedom in order to surrender to, or fall in line behind, the Islamic terrorists) that nothing other than comtempt is warranted. And by the way, your continuing to make derogatory Germanic references is quite silly and childish.
10. Brits ask the boss for a RISE in pay, Americans ask him/her for a RAISE. Americans do not 'grasp' straws, they 'grasp AT' them, which is, I think, what I said. If Brits CLUTCH or CLUTCH AT them, fine, the idea is that, metaphoically at least, a drowning person will try anything to survive, no matter how nearly hopeless, such as grasping at a floating straw.
11. Well, what I think you're referring to is that the pope issues encyclicals, which Catholics obviously accept as authoritative. These do not, however, involve dogma, which is the only area in which infallibility, the Church believes, is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Vatican II was a Church council, not a 'rule', and the Tridentine Mass is still used in certain circumstances.
12. I said, '...in modern times...' I believe.
13. As I asked in 1d, why do you think that was? Could the fact that the Vatican was surrounded by a Fascist state have been a factor?
14. As Christians, we are all supposed to imitate Christ. That is, indeed, the very essence of Christianity. Unlike the pope, however, we do not have the responsibility for administering the Church. And by the way, the pope is elected, not annointed.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
[QUOTE=Bronwen]8. [I frankly don't care whether it continues or not. Informing someone that s/he is 'ignorant of' a particular fact or set of facts is not insulting. You are either too thin-skinned or simply trying to be disagreeable.
If someone else likes to raise the points you have made I will discuss them but frankly I am wasting my breath with you. You can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
..........the matter was so obviously fatuous (such as another poster's recent assertion that the great European democracies have begun abandoning freedom in order to surrender to, or fall in line behind, the Islamic terrorists) that nothing other than comtempt is warranted.
This is typical of your bullheaded arrogance. Someone in the group has a point of view but because you are unable to argue in a civilised manner, you resort to insults. Something other than contempt is warranted - a cogent counter argument. Get to your knees and pray for humility.
...........And by the way, your continuing to make derogatory Germanic references is quite silly and childish.
You may think so but then you were not woken one morning by a Luftwaffe bomb which not only razed our house to the ground but almost did for me. So far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a German worth a light since the death of Wagner and you do nothing to make me change my mind.
If someone else likes to raise the points you have made I will discuss them but frankly I am wasting my breath with you. You can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
..........the matter was so obviously fatuous (such as another poster's recent assertion that the great European democracies have begun abandoning freedom in order to surrender to, or fall in line behind, the Islamic terrorists) that nothing other than comtempt is warranted.
This is typical of your bullheaded arrogance. Someone in the group has a point of view but because you are unable to argue in a civilised manner, you resort to insults. Something other than contempt is warranted - a cogent counter argument. Get to your knees and pray for humility.
...........And by the way, your continuing to make derogatory Germanic references is quite silly and childish.
You may think so but then you were not woken one morning by a Luftwaffe bomb which not only razed our house to the ground but almost did for me. So far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a German worth a light since the death of Wagner and you do nothing to make me change my mind.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: 1. If someone else likes to raise the points you have made I will discuss them but frankly I am wasting my breath with you.
2. You may think so but then you were not woken one morning by a Luftwaffe bomb which not only razed our house to the ground but almost did for me. So far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a German worth a light since the death of Wagner and you do nothing to make me change my mind.1. In other words, you have no answers to any of my points but are, to coin a phrase, merely blowing hot air.
Any other poster who would like to address them, in whole or in part, is certainly free to do so. It's an open forum.
2. Then you should be actively opposing Islamic terrorism, the CURRENT world menace, rather than wasting your time hypothesizing about why Israel doesn't deserve to exist. The Israelis aren't going to bomb your Underground and neither are the Germans.
2. You may think so but then you were not woken one morning by a Luftwaffe bomb which not only razed our house to the ground but almost did for me. So far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a German worth a light since the death of Wagner and you do nothing to make me change my mind.1. In other words, you have no answers to any of my points but are, to coin a phrase, merely blowing hot air.
Any other poster who would like to address them, in whole or in part, is certainly free to do so. It's an open forum.
2. Then you should be actively opposing Islamic terrorism, the CURRENT world menace, rather than wasting your time hypothesizing about why Israel doesn't deserve to exist. The Israelis aren't going to bomb your Underground and neither are the Germans.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote:
2. Then you should be actively opposing Islamic terrorism, the CURRENT world menace, rather than wasting your time hypothesizing about why Israel doesn't deserve to exist. The Israelis aren't going to bomb your Underground and neither are the Germans.
I condemn all terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. It is a dirty, cowardly way of waging a war. However, that does not prevent one from examining the motives for a particular outbreak of terrorism: the means may be wrong but the cause just.
The Israelis may one day bomb the Underground, who knows. The Germans tried and failed.
2. Then you should be actively opposing Islamic terrorism, the CURRENT world menace, rather than wasting your time hypothesizing about why Israel doesn't deserve to exist. The Israelis aren't going to bomb your Underground and neither are the Germans.
I condemn all terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. It is a dirty, cowardly way of waging a war. However, that does not prevent one from examining the motives for a particular outbreak of terrorism: the means may be wrong but the cause just.
The Israelis may one day bomb the Underground, who knows. The Germans tried and failed.
No more kneeling in church?
Heavens, look what happens when one goes away for a weeks holidays.
I will make one comment though. I find personal references to one's country of origin and its people very offensive. That was some 66 years ago. It is time to get over it. This does not mean to forget what happened but it does mean to get on with life in a peaceful manner and to remember the thousands of innocent folks on either side who lost their lives. We are all children of God and members of the human race.
Personally I have many friends of German origin and I do not blame them for what happened that long ago. Nor do I blame the Japanese. Ripping at old wounds is not in the least helpful to anyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I will make one comment though. I find personal references to one's country of origin and its people very offensive. That was some 66 years ago. It is time to get over it. This does not mean to forget what happened but it does mean to get on with life in a peaceful manner and to remember the thousands of innocent folks on either side who lost their lives. We are all children of God and members of the human race.
Personally I have many friends of German origin and I do not blame them for what happened that long ago. Nor do I blame the Japanese. Ripping at old wounds is not in the least helpful to anyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: Heavens, look what happens when one goes away for a weeks holidays.
I will make one comment though. I find personal references to one's country of origin and its people very offensive. That was some 66 years ago. It is time to get over it. This does not mean to forget what happened but it does mean to get on with life in a peaceful manner and to remember the thousands of innocent folks on either side who lost their lives. We are all children of God and members of the human race.
Personally I have many friends of German origin and I do not blame them for what happened that long ago. Nor do I blame the Japanese. Ripping at old wounds is not in the least helpful to anyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Forgiveness comes from those who were directly affected. Were you bombed?
I will make one comment though. I find personal references to one's country of origin and its people very offensive. That was some 66 years ago. It is time to get over it. This does not mean to forget what happened but it does mean to get on with life in a peaceful manner and to remember the thousands of innocent folks on either side who lost their lives. We are all children of God and members of the human race.
Personally I have many friends of German origin and I do not blame them for what happened that long ago. Nor do I blame the Japanese. Ripping at old wounds is not in the least helpful to anyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Forgiveness comes from those who were directly affected. Were you bombed?
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: I find personal references to one's country of origin and its people very offensive. That was some 66 years ago. It is time to get over it.
William Ess wrote: Forgiveness comes from those who were directly affected. Were you bombed?Since my maternal ancestors came to the USA in the 19th century and many of their children and grandchildren fought bravely and honorably against Germany in TWO world wars, it does seem a little illogical - like most of what Bill posts - to direct such barbs at me personally.
William Ess wrote: Forgiveness comes from those who were directly affected. Were you bombed?Since my maternal ancestors came to the USA in the 19th century and many of their children and grandchildren fought bravely and honorably against Germany in TWO world wars, it does seem a little illogical - like most of what Bill posts - to direct such barbs at me personally.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: Since my maternal ancestors came to the USA in the 19th century and many of their children and grandchildren fought bravely and honorably against Germany in TWO world wars, it does seem a little illogical - like most of what Bill posts - to direct such barbs at me personally.
Strange then, that my logic should win me plaudits and prizes from Cambridge. You infer that the judgement of Senate House stands in the shadow of yours.
What your predecessors did, has no bearing on the matter. Paradoxically some of mine were on the German side of the line. In Dachau.
I am afraid that Bronwen's logic resembles that of Gratiano whose reason was as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff:
'you shall seek all day ere you find them
and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.'
Strange then, that my logic should win me plaudits and prizes from Cambridge. You infer that the judgement of Senate House stands in the shadow of yours.
What your predecessors did, has no bearing on the matter. Paradoxically some of mine were on the German side of the line. In Dachau.
I am afraid that Bronwen's logic resembles that of Gratiano whose reason was as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff:
'you shall seek all day ere you find them
and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.'
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: Strange then, that my logic should win me plaudits and prizes from Cambridge. You infer that the judgement of Senate House stands in the shadow of yours.
What your predecessors did, has no bearing on the matter. Paradoxically some of mine were on the German side of the line. In Dachau.
I am afraid that Bronwen's logic resembles that of Gratiano whose reason was as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff:
'you shall seek all day ere you find them
and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.'Anyone have the slightest idea what this buffoon is talking about?
What your predecessors did, has no bearing on the matter. Paradoxically some of mine were on the German side of the line. In Dachau.
I am afraid that Bronwen's logic resembles that of Gratiano whose reason was as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff:
'you shall seek all day ere you find them
and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.'Anyone have the slightest idea what this buffoon is talking about?
No more kneeling in church?
No, Bronwen. I came in to read this thread - I often read threads in which you and Ted and others are talking about religious matters that interest me. I feel I don't know enough to add anything to the debate. But I'm most embarrassed about the completely inappropriate things that have been said to you personally in here.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: Anyone have the slightest idea what this buffoon is talking about?
Well Brynhilde bach, we not add something sensible to the main thread of the debate and do something your restore your credibility.
Well Brynhilde bach, we not add something sensible to the main thread of the debate and do something your restore your credibility.
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: Anyone have the slightest idea what this buffoon is talking about?
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
I do but I'm not surprised you don't.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
I do but I'm not surprised you don't.
No more kneeling in church?
William:-6
My family were in that war and I lost some. I think that gives me some basis on which to speak to say nothing about the threats to Canadian soil.
I find those personal attacks on Bronwen, with whom I sometimes strongly disagree, to be extremely offensive. Is that from Cambridge too. I sincerely hope not.
Shalom
Ted:-6
My family were in that war and I lost some. I think that gives me some basis on which to speak to say nothing about the threats to Canadian soil.
I find those personal attacks on Bronwen, with whom I sometimes strongly disagree, to be extremely offensive. Is that from Cambridge too. I sincerely hope not.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: William:-6
My family were in that war and I lost some. I think that gives me some basis on which to speak to say nothing about the threats to Canadian soil.
I find those personal attacks on Bronwen, with whom I sometimes strongly disagree, to be extremely offensive. Is that from Cambridge too. I sincerely hope not.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is nothing,as Johnson might have said, like having a bomb dropped on oneself - as opposed to relatives - to concentrate the mind.
If you had taken the trouble to look back before hurling yourself at the keyboard, you would have seen that the lady in question is very largely the author of her own misfortunes. It is she who turns to abuse - and I am not the only recipient - when presented with an argument she is unable to meet and, frankly, if she can't take it, she shouldn't give it.
My family were in that war and I lost some. I think that gives me some basis on which to speak to say nothing about the threats to Canadian soil.
I find those personal attacks on Bronwen, with whom I sometimes strongly disagree, to be extremely offensive. Is that from Cambridge too. I sincerely hope not.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is nothing,as Johnson might have said, like having a bomb dropped on oneself - as opposed to relatives - to concentrate the mind.
If you had taken the trouble to look back before hurling yourself at the keyboard, you would have seen that the lady in question is very largely the author of her own misfortunes. It is she who turns to abuse - and I am not the only recipient - when presented with an argument she is unable to meet and, frankly, if she can't take it, she shouldn't give it.
No more kneeling in church?
William:-6
So does that mean that one should lower oneself to the lowest common denominator.
This is not a comment on Bronwen just a comment on human behaviour in general. Brownwen and I have dueled in the past. However, neither of us resorted to personal attacks. As such we still remain friends.
Shalom
Ted:-6
So does that mean that one should lower oneself to the lowest common denominator.
This is not a comment on Bronwen just a comment on human behaviour in general. Brownwen and I have dueled in the past. However, neither of us resorted to personal attacks. As such we still remain friends.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Ted wrote: William:-6
So does that mean that one should lower oneself to the lowest common denominator.
This is not a comment on Bronwen just a comment on human behaviour in general. Brownwen and I have dueled in the past. However, neither of us resorted to personal attacks. As such we still remain friends.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Then I trust that Bronwen will learn from your example and cease the personal attacks which started the trouble in the first place. This may result in an outbreak of peace.
So does that mean that one should lower oneself to the lowest common denominator.
This is not a comment on Bronwen just a comment on human behaviour in general. Brownwen and I have dueled in the past. However, neither of us resorted to personal attacks. As such we still remain friends.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Then I trust that Bronwen will learn from your example and cease the personal attacks which started the trouble in the first place. This may result in an outbreak of peace.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: Then I trust that Bronwen will learn from your example and cease the personal attacks which started the trouble in the first place. This may result in an outbreak of peace.There isn't anyone in the world who appears more stupid than a fool trying to pass himself off as erudite.
I attempted to have a serious discussion with you by posting a whole list of questions and challenges to statements you had made. I'm not going to waste web space by repeating that post here; it can be viewed on the previous page, with my contribution beginning, Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post..
You responded to none of them, only with more insults and ethnic slurs. If you had said that you had no answers, I would have at least given you credit for honesty and thanked you for your participation.
William Ess wrote: Well Brynhilde bach...The correct form is Brynhilde fach, and if you're going to call me names in Welsh, I prefer Broni fach fwyn.
I attempted to have a serious discussion with you by posting a whole list of questions and challenges to statements you had made. I'm not going to waste web space by repeating that post here; it can be viewed on the previous page, with my contribution beginning, Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post..
You responded to none of them, only with more insults and ethnic slurs. If you had said that you had no answers, I would have at least given you credit for honesty and thanked you for your participation.
William Ess wrote: Well Brynhilde bach...The correct form is Brynhilde fach, and if you're going to call me names in Welsh, I prefer Broni fach fwyn.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
No more kneeling in church?
Bronwen wrote: There isn't anyone in the world who appears more stupid than a fool trying to pass himself off as erudite.
I attempted to have a serious discussion with you by posting a whole list of questions and challenges to statements you had made. I'm not going to waste web space by repeating that post here; it can be viewed on the previous page, with my contribution beginning, Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post..
You responded to none of them, only with more insults and ethnic slurs. If you had said that you had no answers, I would have at least given you credit for honesty and thanked you for your participation.
The correct form is Brynhilde fach, and if you're going to call me names in Welsh, I prefer Broni fach fwyn.
Bronwen bach, you are simply trying to cover yourself in bombast. The fact is that on several occasions you have provoked trouble by responding to valid points made in the course of debate by insults and sneers; presumably because you have no return of argument. This is what had caused the trouble and I am not the only member to have remarked on it. Indeed your opening sentence here - quite unnecessary - reinforces this point.
If you feel that there are points raised in the debate that I have not addressed, perhaps you would be good enough to repeat them and I shall respond as best I can.
I attempted to have a serious discussion with you by posting a whole list of questions and challenges to statements you had made. I'm not going to waste web space by repeating that post here; it can be viewed on the previous page, with my contribution beginning, Bill, your inspiration obviously comes in dribbles and drabbles, but I will try to respond to all in one post..
You responded to none of them, only with more insults and ethnic slurs. If you had said that you had no answers, I would have at least given you credit for honesty and thanked you for your participation.
The correct form is Brynhilde fach, and if you're going to call me names in Welsh, I prefer Broni fach fwyn.
Bronwen bach, you are simply trying to cover yourself in bombast. The fact is that on several occasions you have provoked trouble by responding to valid points made in the course of debate by insults and sneers; presumably because you have no return of argument. This is what had caused the trouble and I am not the only member to have remarked on it. Indeed your opening sentence here - quite unnecessary - reinforces this point.
If you feel that there are points raised in the debate that I have not addressed, perhaps you would be good enough to repeat them and I shall respond as best I can.
No more kneeling in church?
William Ess wrote: 1. Bronwen bach...
2. If you feel that there are points raised in the debate that I have not addressed, perhaps you would be good enough to repeat them and I shall respond as best I can.1. Doesn't know the difference between a he and a she, and...
2. ...is incapable of finding his way back to the previous page.
Why am I not surprised? No, I'm not going to waste the space so generously provided by this forum to cut-and-paste the post. It's there for anyone to read and anyone else is welcome to respond in whole or in part.
2. If you feel that there are points raised in the debate that I have not addressed, perhaps you would be good enough to repeat them and I shall respond as best I can.1. Doesn't know the difference between a he and a she, and...
2. ...is incapable of finding his way back to the previous page.
Why am I not surprised? No, I'm not going to waste the space so generously provided by this forum to cut-and-paste the post. It's there for anyone to read and anyone else is welcome to respond in whole or in part.