Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 553
  1. #201

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11435
    Bek, I can answer your whole post by saying I don't believe all disputes need to be resolved. People disagree. Who cares? They love God, they believe they've done right based in their relationship with God. Even if they did completely the opposite of what I believe is true, it's not for me to say what God told them is wrong. I believe God can say different things to different people. I believe a passage in the Bible can be read through the Holy Spirit and be interpreted many different, and equally correct, ways for different people. I don't believe I need a, or the, church or a pastor to tell me right or wrong; I have God. Not that I always listen or interpret correctly, but I would trust what I feel from the Holy Spirit over anyone. That's not to say I don't ask for guidance sometimes, I do, but I ask for guidance from God first, then others, then God again. I don't care if my whole church disagrees, they don't know all the answers any more than I do. I'm non-denominational, but don't care what denomination you are, we can always agree to disagree - the fundamentals of my faith (that I believe Jesus died and rose again etc.) is what is most important, that we love God and one another, and that we continue to seek with open minds and hearts.
    Last edited by Angelskates; 02-15-2013 at 07:38 AM.

  2. #202
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    572
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    No they can't. It's against the rules. Except for some carefully delineated exceptions:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_ta...dult_Christian

    ETA okay I noticed you said "some". It depends on what you mean by "some". You have to believe in transfiguration for one thing -- that the Eucharist has literally been transformed into the blood and body of Christ. And it is supposed to be an extraordinary circumstance as well.

    Exactly. Since I'm only familiar with Catholic beliefs, that's why I typed " "some" I'm assuming that one time trip of my choir and the Lutheran choir qualified as an extraordinary circumstance. Whether or not other denominations accept the belief of transubstantiation is unknown to me..

  3. #203
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,839
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Bek, I admire your faith and respect your beliefs. But, for me, I must take into consideration that the Bible/Scriptures/etc. have all been written, translated, and interpreted by man. What is right? What is wrong? What has been changed due to political pressure and secular necessity? So, for me, to say that one denomination answers the questions more correctly than another, does not feel right.

  4. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,837
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    I should look at what the early church said and I was mainly thinking of Communion because personally, I don't want to go with what I "want Communion to be" I want to go on what Christ wants communion to be. I don't want Baptism to be what I "want Baptism to be" I want to go with what Christ wants baptism to be.
    Well, in that instance you would probably want to emulate the Jewish traditions upon which each is based. Communion is basically the reciting of kiddush on Sabbath over the challah and wine. And baptism comes from mikveh immersion. If you want to practice baptism as it was done by the early church and experienced by Christ, it would be done in the nude as an adult. It would be done once for conversion, but then repeated for purification purposes.

    You won't find many Christian denominations who practice baptism in that way, and certainly not Catholics. So when you talk about going back to the early church and what Christ likely intended, well, you wouldn't be following many Catholic traditions then.

    Just sayin...

  5. #205
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,837
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    I believe a passage in the Bible can be read through the Holy Spirit and be interpreted many different, and equally correct, ways for different people.
    To bek's point about re: the Holy Spirit, I'll relay this anecdote. I remember when I attended seminary, one of my fellow students felt moved by the Holy Spirit to preach a message. So he preached how God hated gays, and what an offense it was to compare the struggle of gays to that of African-American civil rights struggles. Now, he wasn't planning on preaching that, but the Holy Spirit convicted him to change his sermon to deliver that message.

    And so he did.

    I, too, was similarly moved by the Holy Spirit, and preached about the sin of the Church being evidenced in widespread homophobia, and how that has plagued our witness over the centuries. I preached about a few other church sins while I was at it. So, being moved by the Holy Spirit, some of the faculty members stood up and walked out during my sermon. The remaining faculty members, again moved by the Holy Spirit, nominated and awarded me the seminary's annual award in outstanding homiletics.

    So one person's Holy Spirit is another person's heterodoxy.

  6. #206
    Shadow dancing
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Camping in the great outdoors
    Posts
    16,116
    vCash
    800
    Rep Power
    12482
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    If two never before married non-Catholic baptized people marry in a civil ceremony or other religious ceremony and later convert to Catholicism, it is a valid Catholic marriage. If a unbaptized non-Catholic marries in any kind of ceremony, later divorces and wants to remarry a Catholic, the first marriage would be deemed invalid. But it would have to be proven in the annulment process.
    I believe in this case it would be a Lack of Canonical Form (or Lack of Form), not an annulment. That's what I had to get when I went through RCIA before I could be confirmed (I was baptized Catholic but never had instruction as a child). In my case, I was married in a civil ceremony and then later divorced. IIRC, the Church didn't consider this marriage valid at all, since it was civil.

    I asked how my current marriage (married to a Lutheran by a Luteran pastor) would be viewed, and I was told that the Church considers it a valid marriage because of some sort of agreement with the Lutherans (I didn't follow up on that, so I'm not sure what that's all about), but that if my husband and I were to divorce and I wanted to remarry in the Catholic Church, it would require a Lack of Form not an annulment.

    The Lack of Form, btw, takes way less time than an annulment. I was able to get mine within a month, if I remember correctly. It was basically providing my marriage license and divorce decree, and getting my ex-husband to sign off on it (or in my case, stating that I didn't know where my ex-husband was). It was a rubber stamp kind of thing.

    http://www.archatl.com/offices/tribunal/drm_c.html

  7. #207

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,712
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    Bek, I admire your faith and respect your beliefs. But, for me, I must take into consideration that the Bible/Scriptures/etc. have all been written, translated, and interpreted by man. What is right? What is wrong? What has been changed due to political pressure and secular necessity? So, for me, to say that one denomination answers the questions more correctly than another, does not feel right.
    Also take into consideration that the "church" picked the books to be placed into the New Testament. There were many letters or books that could have been included, but the selection was determined by man/scholars.

  8. #208
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,839
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    Also take into consideration that the "church" picked the books to be placed into the New Testament. There were many letters or books that could have been included, but the selection was determined by man/scholars.
    Absolutely.

  9. #209

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    16,930
    vCash
    1600
    Rep Power
    4720
    Quote Originally Posted by agalisgv View Post
    Well, in that instance you would probably want to emulate the Jewish traditions upon which each is based. Communion is basically the reciting of kiddush on Sabbath over the challah and wine. And baptism comes from mikveh immersion. If you want to practice baptism as it was done by the early church and experienced by Christ, it would be done in the nude as an adult. It would be done once for conversion, but then repeated for purification purposes.

    You won't find many Christian denominations who practice baptism in that way, and certainly not Catholics. So when you talk about going back to the early church and what Christ likely intended, well, you wouldn't be following many Catholic traditions then.

    Just sayin...
    Well naked baptisms did happen remember that there were also a lot of catechumens in the early church. Then in around the 3rd century there was talk of postponing baptism for adults because baptism was thought to erase one's sins altogether and so being baptized later meant not having to do penance (etc, etc) later on... However infant baptism was still practiced and even one of the biggest proponents for it Tertullian admits infant baptism has apostolic origins. At the end of the day there were a high amount of emergency baptisms and it was decided on baptism for babies.... As for communion there is quite a lot of early church writings that say they took Jesus's words literally......And services were centered around it.. As for purification purposes, I know in Judaism it was but I'm not so sure about early church perhaps with some certain sects. But I recall in the 3rd century some not being baptized for awhile...

    To bek's point about re: the Holy Spirit.....
    And that's exactly my point. Honestly I use to be like Angel Skates thinking we all believed in essentials and its okay. But maybe it was my time in Seminary but there became a moment where I could accept this each one has its own opinion and its a-okay. For me the big thing is the fact that issues are dividing people.. For example Christians being unable to take Communion together because of disagreements and a Professor saying well each one just decides for themselves what it means... .Just didn't work for me....I felt like there was Truth, Communion Biblically is suppose to represent unity of Christians and Christians cannot even take it together... So for me that's pretty huge. And I felt the Catholic position well it could be either idolatry as well...Because really the Eucharist truly is Jesus in Catholic teachings.

    I agree with cruisin about humans coming together for those books. However as I said earlier I don't have in Christianity Jesus giving us book. Instead Jesus gave us (His life and resurrection) and then gave the message to the apostles. So for me for whatever reason God choose to leave the message to well humans. And He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide said humans. For me the idea that God stopped guiding at some point... I cannot accept that... For me it became either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

    A part of me feel Jesus died on the Cross that's it, leads to in someways kind of a watered down Christianity... Yes that is the central point but after that there are questions people have....And I also say once again what happens when you have a Pastor preach "once saved always saved" and you have people take said Pastor seriously.

    Truth matters in that sense. There may be some people who if they heard the Pastor preach a life of repenting before God. Perhaps there are people who would change their lives. Because how can people know what they don't hear. That's why I think theology really does matter.

    In the end there's my practicality which says there has to be a means of discerning the Holy Spirit in the Church. Rather than everyone has their opinion/everyone is right. And if this had been the prevailing opinion in Christianity early on, I doubt we'd have the New Testament. Even Jesus died on the Cross is Tradition. After all the Muslims would disagree with that, and question the authenticity of our Scriptures...

  10. #210
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,315
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    my time in Seminary


    I learn something new every day!

  11. #211

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    16,930
    vCash
    1600
    Rep Power
    4720
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post


    I learn something new every day!
    About gosh ten years ago... I went to Seminary right out of college because I wanted to be a missionary. I was raised Pentecostal/Charismatic went through a period in high school where I believed nothing. Came back freshman year of college but because well I didn't have any Pentecostal groups in college, I went to a Methodist college group.. (I also attended a Christian church for regular services and volunteered at a Presbyterian Church! All while proudly calling myself a Pentecostal...)... I decided to go to a Pentecostal Seminary because I felt my time in ecumenical heaven, I decided maybe I need to learn more about what I actually was.

    Well I pretty much came out of Seminary after two years a Catholic...(I did attend a Catholic high school for two years).. It shocked quite a lot of people, and heck it shocked myself...I wasn't even really looking to be anything more than what I wanted to be but I could just no longer accept Protestantism as a movement... It was also realizing that there wasn't a single Protestant Church that I agreed with 100%... So it was either I could build my own Church based on what I thought things should be... Or I could maybe start asking some questions about my basis..... I really do think it was my ecumenical experience in college that really paved that road.

    It was a difficult choice and for a moment I did ask God if I could just be Methodist a good middle road between Catholicism and Pentecostalism... But after some prayer decided I'd go the whole route!

    I must say that in terms of Catholicism, the biggest thing I got out of Catholicism isn't the Pope... It isn't really Tradition. The biggest thing I got from it is the Eucharist (which weirdly enough was the big thing that made me reject the whole concept of Sola Scriptura). With the Eucharist I get an intense personal encounter and oneness with God. I did experience God as a Protestant...But I never had that Eucharist experience because well I just didn't believe in it....

    Part of saying we agree on essentials is nobody really can agree on what essentials is. For example for Catholics/Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox. The Eucharist is the very center of our faith...

    The whole I'm going to be a Catholic was a tough things as well a woman who went ahead with all of this seminary debt! And I actually struggled some with Catholicism too because Catholicism is much stricter. However now I am just focusing more on my relationship with God....And slowly the career thing is working out too. But in a lot of ways theologically I still know more about Protestantism than Catholicism.....In a lot of areas though my beliefs didn't change that much. (scarily enough which is why I don't feel Catholicism restricts my relationship with God).
    Last edited by bek; 02-16-2013 at 04:25 AM.

  12. #212
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,518
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20235
    Meanwhile the rumors swirl--cardinals want to kick Benedict out of the Vatican, infighting and other drama. This being the Daily Mail, of course but they do cite other sources. Now there's
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  13. #213

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11435
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers123 View Post
    Also take into consideration that the "church" picked the books to be placed into the New Testament. There were many letters or books that could have been included, but the selection was determined by man/scholars.
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    Absolutely.
    And not just humans, but men.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    Honestly I use to be like Angel Skates thinking we all believed in essentials and its okay.
    It's the difference between Christian and not Christian.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    For me the big thing is the fact that issues are dividing people..
    The Church is dividing people, not the Holy Spirit. Love God, love others, and it doesn't matters whether there are disputes. Your church won't let me have communion, but mine would let you have communion. Christian is Christian, except for the Catholics. I've never been to a Christian church that has not allowed Catholics to have communion. Which one is dividing people?

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    For me the idea that God stopped guiding at some point... I cannot accept that...
    I don't accept that either (does any Christian not believe the Holy Spirit guides them?) but I can have the Holy Spirit guide ME, so I don't need Him to guide anyone else on my behalf. Not to say He hasn't. I have had people, sometimes total strangers, give me messages from the Holy Spirit, but before I follow them etc. I always ask Him myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    A part of me feel Jesus died on the Cross that's it, leads to in someways kind of a watered down Christianity... Yes that is the central point but after that there are questions people have....
    It's sad that you think this is watered down Christianity, because it's not that Jesus died, it's that He rose, and the reasons for that that mean something so much deeper than can be considered watered down. What that means to me shows in everything I do, everything I say...well, I want it to, anyway. We're humans, so sometimes we stray. Of course there are questions, but no one, not the Pope, not the church, not me, not you, has all the answers. Why should I go to someone who I know doesn't have all of the answers, when I go to the One who has all the answers? The Holy Spirit guides me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    Truth matters in that sense. There may be some people who if they heard the Pastor preach a life of repenting before God. Perhaps there are people who would change their lives. Because how can people know what they don't hear. That's why I think theology really does matter.
    People seek out information, that's how we learn things. I also became a Christian as an adult (18), but I have always been a seeker, and I still am. I am fascinated with faith. Before I chose my own, even though I had an overwhelming experience with God that was undeniable, I asked around, went to lots of different faiths' services, read lots of different Holy Books, and prayed. I always believed in God, but what that meant in terms of a religion, I didn't know. I sometimes thinks the divisions created by denominations would break Jesus' heart, but then, it means there's something for everyone who chooses Christianity, it means He can touch more people. I still have an interfaith group once a week, and it's a highlight of my week. Do I think everyone except the Christians in my group are wrong? Yes, sometimes. Actually, I think the other Christians are wrong sometimes too Do they all think I'm wrong most of the time? Probably. But we still love each other, and others, and we think discussion is important and that an agreement doesn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    After all the Muslims would disagree with that, and question the authenticity of our Scriptures...
    And we question theirs, and all others. You question mine. I actually don't question yours - I use the Catholic (Jerusalem) Bible, along with as many different translations as I can get my hands on. Because I think they're all equally Holy, and equally right, and can all teach me something.
    Last edited by Angelskates; 02-16-2013 at 09:28 AM.

  14. #214
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Jani-Ayil
    Posts
    3,315
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Meanwhile the rumors swirl--cardinals want to kick Benedict out of the Vatican, infighting and other drama. This being the Daily Mail, of course but they do cite other sources. Now there's
    Before it was suggested upthread that Ziggy and the Pope could be roommates, I had kind of imagined that Benedict and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, the timing of whose own abdication seems to be more than just happenstance, would act out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing (or Berlioz's opera) and settle down together in Messina or the South of France. The women in her family do have a penchant for German men and Catholics.


  15. #215

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    16,930
    vCash
    1600
    Rep Power
    4720
    The Church is dividing people, not the Holy Spirit. Love God, love others, and it doesn't matters whether there are disputes. Your church won't let me have communion, but mine would let you have communion. Christian is Christian, except for the Catholics. I've never been to a Christian church that has not allowed Catholics to have communion. Which one is dividing people?
    There are Protestant Churches that practice closed communion. For example a lot of Lutherans do. Part of the reason we Catholics practice closed communion is because a lot of Protestants deny what Communion actually is-the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I know there have been some Protestants who have been administered communion to by the Pope himself but one of the rules has been that this person must affirm the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. We feel this denial by most Protestants is extremely serious..

    Second communion is suppose to symbolize unity. Right now there is no unity between Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox. Closed communion is difficult but it encourages us to fix our issues. The Eastern Orthodox have a very similar attitude towards the Eucharist that we do, which is why they too say no common Eucharist until we come to terms with our disagreements since the Eucharist is the symbol of our unity....

    If you view Communion as just a spiritual supper than its easier to say everyone participate. But if you view Communion as actually partaking the glorified body and blood of Christ.......

    It's sad that you think this is watered down Christianity, because it's not that Jesus died, it's that He rose, and the reasons for that that mean something so much deeper than can be considered watered down. What that means to me shows in everything I do, everything I say...well, I want it to, anyway. We're humans, so sometimes we stray. Of course there are questions, but no one, not the Pope, not the church, not me, not you, has all the answers. Why should I go to someone who I know doesn't have all of the answers, when I go to the One who has all the answers? The Holy Spirit guides me.
    Of course Christ's death and resurrection affirms everything we should do and say. But its a watered down Christianity because the relativism of what Sola Scriptura brings up. I.e we know Christ died and rose for our sins, but we don't know anything else. We can't agree on anything else. It makes it difficult for the Church to speak on anything with one voice because people will disagree and say Scripture and the Holy Spirit tells them different.

    Jesus said I'm the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So how is this Christian life suppose to be lived? In fact that's what the Lord told me in that moment in class. That's there's truth. That Jesus had a meaning when He said " This is my body" and it wasn't decide for yourself. That's there's truth in the debate of whether Christians can lose their Salvation or not. Scripture itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

    In a word that is increasingly hurting, the Church needs to be able to speak out on topics. It needs to speak about evil, sin. Because sin is real and it separates people from God. But how can the Church do this if people can debate/argue etc about what Truth is? And there's no means of coming into agreement. Catholicism is careful to say not everything is infallible. Things like priestly celibacy, fasts etc aren't infallible. The Church actions aren't either... We've certainly learned from our mistakes and grow in our understanding of Truth. But there still must be a means of discerning what the Truth is. We don't believe God left us to fend for ourselves or decide for ourselves when the Holy Spirit is speaking/not speaking. I.e that the Holy Spirit is giving multiple confusing truths out there contradicting Himself and leading to all kinds of divisions.

    I agree with you that its human beings separating and causing these divisions. But some of these humans do come to conclusions where they feel what about truth? For example an Arminian who believes in free will and the importance of stressing the Gospel to all. And yes that one can lose their salvation. Versus a Calvinist who believes something very different. There is a right answer here in the end...

    In the end as Catholics we believe when these moments come. The Church will follow the example of Acts where a council was created. And Jesus when he says two or more gathered. Our bishops/Pope will pray. They will search Scriptures. They will also search Church Tradition based on Galations which says if anyone comes to you with a Gospel other than the one you have accepted. Than after all of this prayer, search a decision will be made. We believe if those in the council can't agree, Peter's successor will have the final say because someone has to have it. And then a decision will be made. And we believe the Holy Spirit who wants unity and wants Truth will guide this truth..

    I could point out would any government work if it was decided people could interpert the Law for themselves? Eventually you'd have chaos because folks would disagree with what the Law meant. Surely then judges are needed to determine what the Law is. For order and for the law to actually well mean something.

    Mere Christianity is a great thing and I still believe in that something. But it doesn't end there. Its like holding on to a mother's milk, when one can have meat. And I'm not anti everything Protestant etc. I'm still amazed by great Protestant Christians like Corrie Ten Boom etc...I still like Cs Lewis. I actually do have a great respect for John Wesley etc.
    Last edited by bek; 02-16-2013 at 05:39 PM.

  16. #216
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    16,839
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    It's interesting to consider closed Communion. My husband was raised Catholic. His mother was a very strong practicing Catholic. However, my husband was married and divorced. I was raised Episcopalian, so that is the church we married in. For a very long time my husband's mother feared for her son's soul, since he was no longer "Catholic". At least his marriage was not recognized. I did try to reassure her that the Episcopal church was very similar to the Catholic church. When she came to visit, she went to the Episcopal church with us, but did not take Communion. The year before she passed away, she went to midnight mass with us, at the Episcopal church. When it came time for Communion, she got up to receive. I was stunned. And I asked her about it. She looked at me and said, you know what? You're right, we are the same. We believe the same thing. She was 81 at the time.

    I never had a problem receiving Communion in a Catholic church. I have never believed that God or Jesus cared what building I was in or who gave me the Eucharist. I have always believed it was more about how I live my life.

  17. #217

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,888
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    16643
    Many of my Catholic friends feel very comfortable when visiting the Episcopal church.

  18. #218

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,712
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    14096
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    There are Protestant Churches that practice closed communion. For example a lot of Lutherans do. Part of the reason we Catholics practice closed communion is because a lot of Protestants deny what Communion actually is-the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you view Communion as just a spiritual supper than its easier to say everyone participate. But if you view Communion as actually partaking the glorified body and blood of Christ.......
    This is what the Communion Overview as described in the UMC.org
    As early as the Emmaus experience on the day of Resurrection, recorded in Luke 24:13-35, Christians recognized the presence of Jesus Christ in the breaking of bread. The traditional Jewish practice of taking bread, blessing and thanking God, and breaking and sharing the bread took on new meaning for them. When followers of Christ gathered in Jesus’ name, the breaking of bread and sharing of the cup was a means of remembering his life, death, and resurrection and of encountering the living Christ. They experienced afresh the presence of their risen Lord and received sustenance for their lives as disciples. As the church organized itself, this custom of Eucharist became the characteristic ritual of the community and the central act of its worship.

    Over the centuries, various understandings and practices of Holy Communion have developed. Roman Catholicism teaches that the substance of bread and wine are changed (although not visibly) into the actual body and blood of Christ (sometimes called transubstantiation). Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century rejected this teaching but had diverse ideas among themselves. Lutherans maintain that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in and with the elements of bread and wine in the celebration (sometimes erroneously called corporeal presence or consubstantiation). Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, taught that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial or reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, an affirmation of faith, and a sign of Christian fellowship. Although his name may be unfamiliar, Zwingli’s views are widely shared today, especially within evangelical churches. Denominations in the Reformed tradition, following John Calvin, maintain that although Christ’s body is in heaven, when Holy Communion is received with true faith, the power of the Holy Spirit nourishes those who partake. The Church of England affirmed a somewhat similar view in its Catechism and Articles of Religion. These understandings (stated here very simplistically) suggest the range of ideas that were available to John and Charles Wesley and the early Methodists.
    as far as I am concerned, when Communion is offered/given it means that the life and breath of Jesus is within the breaking of the bread and sharing of the wine. This sharing of the Holy Spirit is not restricted to the special holy people of the Catholic church but to all of us. I suppose that in my misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's communion practices, when I participated during the wedding ceremony of my friend - I committed sin and caused this transgression to seep onto those who administered it to me.
    The Catholic church seems hell bent on making the Christianity religion for only some people and not all people.
    Of course Christ's death and resurrection affirms everything we should do and say. But its a watered down Christianity because the relativism of what Sola Scriptura brings up. I.e we know Christ died and rose for our sins, but we don't know anything else. We can't agree on anything else. It makes it difficult for the Church to speak on anything with one voice because people will disagree and say Scripture and the Holy Spirit tells them different.
    I believe that what affirms everything we do should be part of the Old Testament where the 10 Commandments lie along with the additional one that Jesus commanded us to do - love one another. But that can be part of other religions too. We as a Christianity belief need to accept that other religions have their place in our world, you know they whole love one another as you would love yourself. Historically, one could find evidence that Jesus spent not only time in Jewish temples but studied with other types of religions.
    In a word that is increasingly hurting, the Church needs to be able to speak out on topics. It needs to speak about evil, sin. Because sin is real and it separates people from God.
    yet what is sin? I struggle with the concept of sin. To say I am born into sin, without knowledge of sin is irrational. One must learn to differentiate what is right and wrong and act accordingly. We are all subject to the evils of sin - that is what happens when you are given free choice. The Church needs to carefully view topics that previously were not addressed and consider what Jesus would do. Trite sentence, I just can't figure out how best to say it. Jesus challenged the status quo. Did not pass by the issues of the day, asked us to accept people where they are, recognize that people are born who they are and just because certain rules have been in place by the leaders of the church doesn't change how we should treat them. There is more to the story of the Good Samaritan that we want to consider. Insert a gay man sitting at the side of the road, hurt, bleeding and in need of acceptance - someone outside the church offers help and acceptance. Would we not be charged with the same actions? The Catholic church and in general Christian churches have transitioned too much to a status quo state.
    But how can the Church do this if people can debate/argue etc about what Truth is? And there's no means of coming into agreement.
    Truth comes from hearing others speak out and eliminate barriers to our preconceived ideas. To me this is what Jesus taught - throw away those accepted beliefs and challenge ourselves to meet changing social/culture norms.
    I agree with you that its human beings separating and causing these divisions
    Yes, it is human who cause the separating and divisions. That I will agree upon

  19. #219
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,518
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20235
    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    Before it was suggested upthread that Ziggy and the Pope could be roommates, I had kind of imagined that Benedict and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, the timing of whose own abdication seems to be more than just happenstance, would act out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing (or Berlioz's opera) and settle down together in Messina or the South of France. The women in her family do have a penchant for German men and Catholics.

    Ummm, dunno. Ziggy or Queen Beatrix. A tough decision.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  20. #220
    Saint Smugpawski
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cutting Down Privet Because Food Prices Are Going Up Next Year
    Posts
    11,426
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    15519
    Maybe they can have shared custody?
    The fastest thing out of New Jersey since Tricky Nicky in a Muscovian handbasket

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •