Why would I join your org. - org. that seems to be the negative version of all the Tradition established 2000 years ago by Christ and his followers and preserved till our time....
Who needs aspartame, when sugar and honey are waiting?
How different is an Episcopalian mass from a catholic mass, Im not too happy with the changes in the church. I know that Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches are all similar.
@Mauser2012 Not too different, although a woman priest may be in charge in an Episcopal service. It wouldn't hurt to try it, if you're really interested.
@Mauser2012 --The Catholic Mass gives us the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and the Episcopalian Mass and eucharist is invalid because they did not preserve Holy Orders like the "Orthodox" did. Come home to Rome.
@EpiscopalMatthew Just as the Jews took Passover to reflect on how God saved them and brought them out of bondage in Egypt, Christ asked us to remember Him and His suffering on our behalf.
@EpiscopalMatthew Even the so-called communion has been twisted from its clear Biblical meaning. Christ said: Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me. The bread and the wine is supposed to be a memorial to the Son of Man on the eve of His suffering; not some feat of magic to restore the soul and cleanse people of their sins. It has no power to do that. The Last Supper was a Passover meal held in memorial of the Angel of Death passing over the Children of Israel in Egypt.
@EpiscopalMatthew The Bible tells us ritual has no power. In fact, it is a characteristic of idol worship and witchcraft. There is nothing you can do to effect your own salvation. Salvation comes through faith alone. Much of the Liturgy you speak of is the product of Greek and Roman paganism, and not of the Church. The earliest Christians, met in secret and recited scripture. These rituals came much later.
@EpiscopalMatthew If you closely study the Old Testament and the Israelites, God in a way, resembles a herdsman and the Israelites a herd. The shepard cuts out the unhealthy, just as God cuts out the unholy, the filthy, and the evil. The herdsmans desired end product is a strong healthy herd. God's desired end product is a people worthy to bring Christ into the world for the salvation of all Mankind. That's why the Israelites are called the "Chosen" people. They are God's own.
@EpiscopalMatthew The Holy Spirit didn't influence Moses to make these laws. The Holy Spirit itself made these laws. Moses was merely an instrument. These laws were designed by God to protect Israel from the great evil which surrounded them. Destroying the Satanic Canaanites who sacrificed infants to Baal, Dagon, and Molech, the stoning of the wicked among them...these things were necessary.
@EpiscopalMatthew Actually, I believe you are referring to Matthew 5:17-18, but again you are taking the scripture out of context. Christ fullfills the Law in that the Law is finished in Him. He is the fullfillment of the promise. If you go back and study the New Testament, you'll see that Christ tells us exactly what we must do to find salvation.
@EpiscopalMatthew You are referring to the Law of Moses and the First Covenant. You should know that the Law of Moses has no authority in the Church. We are not Jews. Christ has given us a New Covenant. He did not ask us to give up our possesions. You are taking the Scriptures out of their proper context. Christ was speaking to a rich man who valued his wealth more than God. Why don't you go back and read the chapter from the beginning.
@EpiscopalMatthew Well first of all, the New Testament commands women to remain silent and have their head covered in public worship. Sorry if that offends your modern sensibilities but if you have a problem with that, your problem is with God's Holy Word, not with me. Christianity does not bare comparison with Catholicism (Roman paganism with a Christian flavor). The Bible is the only Christian authority. Anything and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
imo there HAS to be a spirit of agreeing, there are of difference in opinion concerning the bible so how would going to this church be any different then going to any other church. follow the spirit.
Women Ordination is Gross, she should only be a lay person, Women Ordination will ruin that church, thats why the Catholic Church has lasted over 2000 years, because men have ran it,
Who exactly is it who decides which of Christ's teachings you will accept, and which you will disgard? Do you keep a list so Episcopalians reading the Bible don't become confused?
Perhaps I don't know much or anything about Episcopals, but at least from my perspective, the Episcopal church shuns spiritual responsibility and is even cowardly in that manner. Episcopals don't seem to actually stand for anything or take a hard line anywhere. It seems like they are willing to compromise on virtually any doctrinal question. Interpretting the Bible must be extremely taxing for an Episcopalian. Better not to read it at all if you are going to openly reject its teachings.
Minckminck: Your use of the term "election fraud" is misleading and incorrect. There were no irregularities reported or alleged concerning her election as presiding bishop. You seem to have an issue with the way Bishop Jefferts Schori presented some of her experience on her resume prior to her election. If a congregation of 200 calls its Christian education program a "school of theology," it is what it is. Incorrect accusations or downright libel will not be tolerated on this channel.
@jimdela Why then did she call herself "Dean" in the Ministry Experience information? I'd say "Dean of the Good Shepherd School of Theology of Corvallis OR" would lead many voters to believe she'd been something other than head of adult education classes at her parish. Furthermore this wasn't reported so on her election as Diocesan bishop of Nevada. Google Good Samaritan School of Theology for more info.
@jimdela I should also mention: I don't mean to accuse the PB of election fraud ... it's simply that one can get to this info by googling this. My apologies if I left a different impression.
@jimdela What would be more accurate is to say there was "very likely" election fraud. The problem surfaced after the election; it's complicated b/c some Episcopalians claim that it's common for churches to call their Christian education (i.e., Sunday School) programs a "school of theology"; but this case is very weak. It's almost certain that there was some intent to deceive; and that Jefferts-Schori herself was aware of this.
Another thing to consider about her is her election - google Jefferts-Schori election fraud - you'll see that the career information presented for her election as Presiding Bishop isn't true. This has been confirmed indirectly by the central office of TEC in New York. A good question here is: do I want to trust my faith to this woman's teaching? From the election evidence, I would say "no."
The Episcopal Church is firmly entrenched as the laughingstock of Christendom! . Episcopal churches continue to close and the denomination dwindles. The Episcopal Church has lost it's theological moorings and is fading away.
I was raised in the Episcopal church but left when I was 16
THIS LADY MAKES ME REGRET THAT
*lovelovelove*
And considering I am the dirtiest of fundamentalists, I am surprised by how much I like her o.O But seriously- why did NO ONE TELL ME she was fantastic???
When the Episcopal Church began ordaining homosexuals and marrying homosexuals, they gave themselves over to Satan without pretense. If you are a christian, flee from this evil organization. You are disgracing Jesus Christ by sanctioning this abomination with your presence.
@MaryWaterton From your posts and your page I would have to say you think about homosexuality more than the vast majority of homosexuals. Does this fact about yourself concern you? If I were you I would attempt to examine the real movites behind the obessive ideation I was exhibiting.
This is so lame and pathetic. What she says about the Episcopal Church does not distinguish it from almost any other church; the same things could be said about the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Eastern Orthodox. I find this kind of clerical b.s. so depressing and discouraging.
@kkallebb except she fails to mention how the Episcopal Church might as well be a new age group of druids who think that relativism is above the objective truths of the Gospel (hence the reason why their doctrine is absurd these days). It used to be a good church that adhered to traditional Anglicanism, but now it is filled with a bunch of leftist hippies who don't believe in absolute truth at all and many Episcopal Bishops have outright denied the divinity of Christ and the Bible.
Bizarre. This video was 'recommended' to me by youtube, and yet it's a nonsense video that is implicitly stating that other communities are not supportive, other communities are not full of a diverse group of folk, other people won't challenge you, etc.
Utter crap, yet more empty-headed religious nonsense.
@singapore7773 well, she doesn't actually. Also: gender norms in clothing are artificial social constructs created by specific societies to meet their structural needs. There are churches that are very traditionalist where women go barebreasted because that is the social norm, there are churches where men and women where whatever they want, so long as it is culturally modest, and there are other traditionalist churches. "men's" clothes are just what we make them to be.
I am no longer an Episcopalian. But I can think of no better way into the practice of the whole of the Christian experience than the Episcopal way. Being an Episcopalian is like going to college in Christianity. Or at least it is there for the taking. The Episcopal experience brings a great deal of the Catholic experience and the thousands of years of thought and consideration; but it also brings with it the English critical enquiry, the enormously problematic questions of the English heritage.
I am no longer an Episcopalian. But I can think of no better way into the practice of the whole of the Christian experience than the Episcopal way. Being an Episcopalian is like going to college in Christianity. Or at least it is there for the taking. The Episcopal experience brings a great deal of the Catholic experience and the thousands of years of thought and consideration; but it also brings with it the English critical enquiry, the enormously problematic questions of the English heritage.
I can tell you why you shouldn't become an Episcopalian:
Because the Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ, and the founder of the Episcopalian sect was the murderous tyrant Henry VIII, who invented his own religion so that he could divorce as he pleased and loot the monasteries.
@iotaunam1 That is certainly one view of the matter. Viewed most positively, however, Henry VIII wished to establish the national identity of England and free it from the control of the Italian popes. The pope probably would have granted Henry the annulment, except that Catherine's nephew, King Charles of Spain, was laying siege to Rome.
No: it is not merely "one view" it is the Truth, which is not subjective. The reason which I gave for Henry's founding of the Anglican sect is a historic fact, which is well documented. That Henry was trying to "free" England from Iitalian" power is absurd, given Henry's published defence of the Papacy to counter Martin Luther and the reformers; for which he was awarded his title by the Pope. That is until he wanted to break Christs law himself.
@iotaunam1 Seriously? The break-away, which has little significance in the grand scheme of things for the Episcopal church, was much more about national identity. The Reformation and counter-reformation are the roots of most of the European Nations and the idea of nation-hood. It was far more political, and it was Thomas Cranmer who was leading the religious side of things.
Christ only founded one Church - the Catholic Church. All others are schismatic and/or heretical. The so called "orthodox" deny Papal Primacy which is doctrine taught by Christ and Clearly proven by Scripture and Tradition. The Greek fathers prove this. PM me to discuss the Scriptural evidence if you wish.
@iotaunam1 Oh thank you for clearing that up for me. I am a heretic belonging to the so-called Orthodox Church. Anyway, there is nothing for us to discuss because unfortunately, your description and judgment of other Christians shows your malcontent. Your information is distorted, unfortunately, and needs to be studied more carefully.
@iotaunam1 No, heresy refers to continuous perpetuation of distorted teaching. Papal supremacy, infallibility, immaculate conception, purgatory were all teachings scholastically developed over time and recently.
Rome is beautiful, we don't deny that. She is first in honor, yes and we love her. But if the Vatican has agreed recently that it's teachings of supremacy and infallibility must go in order to achieve unity with the East, then this would negate your whole point.
I cant even get into the issues in depth here. I know very well what heresy is. A denial of Papal Primacy is heresy. The doctrines you mention were not "developed" at all. Yes, they may have been defined more clearly - but they were all doctrines of Christ. Christ founded only one Church- with one authority. The Catholic Church HAS unity already: it does not need to be sought - this is a dogma. Unity of faith and government in the one Church Christ founded- thats true Unity.
@iotaunam1 I believe you can't get into this issue in depth because you are not reading what I wrote, therefore it's difficult to communicate. Again, we do not deny the primacy of Rome, but Rome was always a first amongst equals. There is one Authority, yes you are correct and that is Christ.
I wish you would calm down a little; anger, haughtiness and super-correctness is not befitting of our hearts, but only our passions, the things that only bring suffering. Again, my warmest wishes!
No, I won't get into the issue here in small comment boxes. I have offered to discuss indepth by PM, but 9 time out of 10 people do not/cannot discuss the issue in depth, and therefore continue to post small one liners. If you want to debate/discuss the issue in depth I will be happy to by PM. Also, the "anger" you mention does not exist on my part; I am just tired of having to refute the same errors so many time. I have debated this issue too many times to remember.
@iotaunam1 I didn't refuse anything. No matter what anyone states you will deny it, utilizing and juxtaposing Scripture to suit your own interpretation and is the only reasoning you can use to justify your claims. History provides different insight.
The Orthodox Church is not heretical; we have never had a reformation, if I may remind you. Regardless, you may think whatever you want, this is your choice. I just hope you don't approach people with such indignation as you do on here.
Either debate the issue in depth or forget about it. Your choice. The reason people are afraid of debates on these and other issues is becuase deep down they know they are wrong, and fear truths being presented which refute and contradict their position. I believe, after so many offers, that you fall into this category unfortunately. You talk about my position being wrong, and yet you refuse to discuss the issue further.
@iotaunam1 Spoken like a true papist and grand inquisitor. Don't hand ultimatums because you're ill prepared to do so and it's unnessary. You need to calm down, I never said you are wrong. However, there are distortions in your statements. As I stated, show me besides juxtaposing Scripture, where your claims are genuine.
Show me historically, and NOT by manipulating Scripture, that the Orthodox are heretical. Does this mean we are going to hell? Will we be looking up at you, my friend?
Funny how you accuse me of being ill prepared, when in fact you refuse to discuss the issue. Perhaps if you actually accepted my offer to discuss in depth, then you could make such a claim. Also, the So-called "ultimatum" is the only way to settle the issue. Either you discuss indepth or not at all - period. There is nothing wrong with this, nor with a refusal - but when you expect me to refute your arguments using Scripture in small comment boxes, thats just ridiculous.
@iotaunam1 More importantly, where does this disdain and repugnance come from? Why are you so condescending towards anyone that isn't what you would consider, a true Roman Catholic?
Don't you pray for the unity of hearts, instead of keeping them torn? Is this the way you approach anyone who isn't like you?
@ponyboy1488 If I have any disdain, it is merely for error. I do not hate anyone, but the errors against the faith cannot just be brushed under the carpet, like the ecumenists would have.Truth is not subjective; matters of the faith are serious.
Romans 16:17:-"Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." -Not too many ecumenists reading these parts of Scripture; Unity is only in the True Church.
@iotaunam1 I am not accusing you, read carefully. Can you do that? Please, just try. I asked you clearly, WITHOUT JUXTAPOSING SCRIPTURE (which you did anyway), show me how the Orthodox Church is heretical. WITHOUT JUXTAPOSING SCRIPTURE to fit your own meaning. Historically, back up your claim that only Rome is the Truth; explain why Rome tore away from the 4 other Patriarchates. Why were all 7 Ecumenical Councils held in Constantinople, not Rome. READ CAREFULLY and then follow your claim.
Firstly, there were more than 7 Ecumenical councils - perhaps you should ask yourself why the so-called orthodox stopped at seven and the Catholic Church CONTINUES to have ecumenical councils. Secondly, not even the seven you mention were all held in constantinople!
I have made you a fair offer. You cannot expect me to prove my position from Scripture and refute yours using 500 characters in these comment boxes. I have offered to discuss this indepth: offer still stands.
@iotaunam1 Rome continued to have councils after the schism; again, the arrogance and condescension is amazing. "So-called" Orthodox?
First, I apologize, you are correct. The 7 Councils were not all in Constantinople, an error on my part of rushing during a break at work. They were held in Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and the first, in Jerusalem of which St. Peter did not preside, rather St. James did.
@iotaunam1 It's silly to say you will prove things such as this church, whatever it is, is the "Only" and "True" one. Nothing in theology or the Bible offers that type of certainty. You might desire it, but it isn't there. And you refer to Orthodoxy. If you are so orthodox, why has Rome shown a tendency to excommunicate your ilk. From a mainstream Christian, or even Roman Catholic, perspective Hans Kuhn should be considered more orthodox than a Traditionalist Romanist like yourself.
No: theological and dogmatic certainty is the only thing we can be sure of. You yourself are a liberal and relativist, therefore you deny what is clearly a fact. If there was no such certainlty in these matters I might be inclined to found my own church, like you did or your founded did: but the truth is undeniable.
If you want to debate indepth on the Biblical proof for Catholicism, PM me: if not, then don't comment on something you know nothing about.
@iotaunam1 I'm neither liberal nor subscribe to relativism. But I do believe that in matters of importance, truth is subjectivity. We are saved only by an encounter and relationship with God, an opportunity given us by God having broken into human history via Jesus Christ. Not false certainty in "The Church" or in the Bible (Biblical irrerancy). I'm not saying anything bad about Catholicism or the Bible, but they're objects of idolatry when they have replaced Christ crucified.
What you claim to subscribe to is superflous, given that you admit that you hold Truth to be "subjectivity". Truth is OBJECTIVE not subjective. When Christ preaches a doctrine as True it is True for that very reason, since Christ is Truth Itself. The Church or Scripture are not worshiped- you have a false concept of Catholicism. The Church preaches Christ Cruicified, as St Paul. Catholicsm is the ONLY Biblical faith. PM to debate indepth if you want.
@iotaunam1 What does it mean, then, that our faith rests in a person as Truth? That is to say, how is it different that Jesus Christ is Truth, as opposed to a principle or dogma? Our faith rests in RELATIONSHIP with God, through the person of Jesus, the Child of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the community of All of God's Saints.
Yes, Jesus Christ is the very Truth in flesh. Thus, faith in the person of Christ is faith in the Truth. Dogmas are truths taught by Jesus Christ who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Those who reject His teachings do not have faith in Him however much they claim to and say "Lord, Lord" etc. The Catholic Church alone is the one true faith founded by Christ Himself. Anglicanism is the invention of a King who rebelled and wanted to fulfill his sinful lusts against the faith.
@iotaunam1 Thank you for reducing my church and the movement to which it belongs to a single event that has little relevance today. Your catholic alone nonsense relies on several assumptions: namely that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and completely consistent, and the same for the Pope. I could also criticize your church for its genocidal and authoritarian history throughout most of medieval Europe, for condemning scientific exploration for centuries, and for other things. But I digress.
The Catholic Church alone was founded by Christ. Henry VIII founded the Anglican sect: this is denied by no historian nor anyone with half a brain and good will. And yes, the Church Christ founded and it ALONE is the only means of Salvation. This was taught 1500 years before the founded of your sect/ "movement" was born. Also, you prove you are not remotely Christian when you attack the innerancy of Scripture. You make your own religion to suit yourself. PM if you want to debate.
@iotaunam1 What Rome did after the schism is up to Rome, which went it's own way clearly. Vatincan I, Vatican II, modifications of doctrines and beliefs. Again, unless I'm mistaken, you had a Reformation, didn't you?
Ponyboy1488@hotmail.com. Please write, you're more than welcome to. But leave the arrogance, the anger and heretic-branding out of it. It's inappropriate and you should know better. Your parents should have raised you better than that, and I'm sure they did.
I would love it, if someone could think of one single Christian denomination or Church that doesn't believe that. Heck even pseudo Christians like Mormons believe that.
@addictedkoala The Religious Society of Friends. There are also many who believe that baptism isn't that which gives you that power, that there is a baptism of the holy spirit that is separate from the baptism of water (Pentecostals and Assemblies of God). Religious Studies major here, sorry. There's your answer, though.
an oppurtunity to experience the love of a motherly leadership. I could experience the love of Blessed Mother Mary not only in Rosary devotion but also in hierarchy as shown by a female bishop. Virgin Mary was conceived in Holy Spirit, therefore the same Spirit manifest its fullness in a woman Bishop. Mary is not just a statue and icon which we've seen but also walking among us, speaking for justice and love of Christ. If Im a little Jesus on earth, we also have little Mary on earth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First error I see in the episcopal church is they have women leaders; that's against scripture. 1 Timothy 2:11ff "a woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 1 Corinthians 14:35ff "since God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says..
Why should I not be an Episcopalian? The bishop is a woman. It thinks everyone is a "minister." They pretend to be traditional, even though they are rebellious like any other Protestant group. They pretend to love each other.
so sad you still living in the 16th century.. You pretending to worship God as in the grandeur of Tradition but in your heart full of deceit.. Love in Christ! JMJ+++
@mariatinaza Card. Billot, under Pope Pius XI, explained this in a work entitled: De Immutabilitate Traditionis Contra Modernam Haeresim Evolutionismi, Concerning the Immutability of Sacred Tradition (1929). This is no invention or opinion, it is the most classic doctrine of the Church: Tradition does not change. In fact, the word tradition comes from the Latin tradere which means to transmit. Tradition is the transmission without change of that which has been deposited.
@WeepingStellaMaris Thanks for the definition: too bad they don't live up to it, and spend too much time belittling the LGBT community, women, and non-Catholics.
@WeepingStellaMaris Thanks for referring to Katharine ++ as "it". Everyone is a minister, and has a ministry. God has a plan for each of us: this is entirely biblical.
"Why should you be an Episcopalian?" You should be an Episcopalian if you are looking for glitz without guilt, for a "religious experience" that does not demand faith or commitment, and for an organization that promotes the view that "anything goes."
"Really, anything goes?" They've been hiding that from me the last 13 years. I'll have to look into it.
My Episcopal church doesn't have any glitz, so I guess I need to find one that does. No faith or commitment? I'll have to find one of those churches too, because that goes against how I've been taught. Wow, thanks for opening my eyes.
Once gain, thanks, I'll be sure to let my priest know that "anything goes", because he's been doing it all wrong.
@cyclone2591 Yes. Anything goes. A gay bishop in New Hampshire, a lesbian suffragan in Los Angeles, and, at 0:50 your presiding bishop says "we don't all think the same thing." In other words, anything goes! An Episcopal church in Phoenix had a Jewish rabbi in residence who preached from the pulpit. Check out Robin Williams' "Top Ten Reasons to be an Episcopalian."
@cyclone2591 Google "Top Ten Reasons to Be An Episcopalian." A gay bishop in NH and a lesbian suffragan in LA, I say anything goes. In a little over 50 years, the Episcopal church now tolerates abortion on demand and does not condemn partial birth abortion. The gay bishop from NH encourages his priests not to perform wedding ceremonies (even opposite sex) saying they should be married civilly and come to church to get blessed. That is his method of promoting "equality" with same sex couples.
@cyclone2591 AMEN! People keep telling me that's what my church believes: I've met Katharine++ 3 times and she believes more than most Evangelicals I know. They keep telling me we're all ritual and catholic lite, and I have seen more devotion in my Episcopal friends than in most of my Catholic friends. They tell me we don't stand for anything when it was an Episcopal church that said that I had a calling, it is the Episcopal church, with other mainline denominations that is standing for the poor
@kingalejandro1 and the Anglican church came from the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church shares roots w/ both Judaism and Islam. So unless your argument is against all western religions, I'm afraid I'm not following you.
@kingalejandro1 Q question-do you think God fell asleep during the 16th century? At that time the Catholic Church was running on a secular platform and not sacred one. God used William Tyndale, Martin Luther and even Henry VIII to split off from the church because people at that time needed to hear the word and be baptised, not be under the thumb of a pope and priests who didn't even know what the bible said in latin, much less apply it to their lives.
FLJesse, I do wish what you say were true of the Presiding Bishop and those who lead the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately it's far from true for these people.
@minckminck Have you met them? have you had conversations with them? prayed with them? worshipped with them? I didn't think so. Stop taking soundbytes and using them against these people. As per usual, the saints of God are attacked.
@episconerd I have carefully read their writings with a charitable eye, and drawn my conclusion. Google Jefferts-Schori denies resurrection and you'll find some interesting reading material.
@minckminck I just did, to see what sorts of things one can ascertain through the interwebs. I maintain what I said. Given that this is a comment section, I can't be convinced that you have sufficient knowledge of her or her theology to make the sorts of judgments you are making. Additionally, what I have read compels me to defend her all the more as one who believes in the Gospel and in the Resurrection:
I remain unconvinced. Meaning does not mean disbelief.
@episconerd What matters more is what she teaches, not what she believes (which strictly speaking we can't know for sure). Re. the resurrection: she teaches that whether it happened or not is unimportant; she always directs our attention away from the resurrection itself by "metamorphizing" it and getting us to think about other things - e.g. environmentalism. Not that this isn't important - it simply isn't the resurrection. Read #1 when you google, it's long. You can also PM me with questions.
@minckminck No, actually, that's not the point at all. She isn't directing them away from the Resurrection itself, but trying to get the church (specifically the Episcopal church, which needs to be directed in this way) to understand how the Resurrection affects us even today. That BECAUSE we believe in the Resurrection our lives should be transformed. That's her theology, and that's what she teaches. I read through both of them, and respectfully disagree.
@episconerd You'd need to see her many references to Sallie McFague and Marcus Borg, know her affiliation with Bishop Spong; also look through her Easter sermons & other relevant material. Unless you think "the resurrection is just a metaphor & if it happened isn't really important," you'll see that she's pointing away from the event itself, and speaking of "transformation" in terms of the change she'd like to see with her political aims (many good, but still not the same as the resurrection).
As an Episcopalian I can say that Jesus is the focus and center of what we are about. The love and power of God are limitless but the heats and minds of men are small.
@AnglicanNew Yes but so has every heretical faction of believers in the history of christianity.....Using it wrongly is more dangerous than not using it at all.
@TheArsenalfc101 I agree in part with you. Using it dangerously is worse than not at all, however if the bible were never translated, few people would know what the bible actually said. The potential for misleading people become greater, the herectical faction goes up higher. The responsiblity of every christian regardless of denomination to know what the bible says.
@AnglicanNew Well yes but what Bishop Schori preaches is certainly not what the Bible says, in fact, she completely dismisses 1900 years of Christian tradition and thought with her new age relativism.
@TheArsenalfc101 And??? Here's the thing, I'm episcopalian for me. I'm not episcopalian for Bishop Schori. I've never heard her say anything 'new age relativism', unless your talking about the policy on homosexuality. I actually support it because all people should know God loves them, and let God change them, not be chastised by the congregants.
Anyway, it's not supposed to be about 'tradition' or even policy. The church, ANY CHURCH, should be about God.
@AnglicanNew She claims that Christ is not the only way man....She thinks if you're a moral Jew or Muslim that hasn't heard the gospel that somehow you could be saved by your sincerity and morality. Creation is enough to condemn. This new way of preaching is new age crap that the episcopal church preaches. Im part of an Anglican church (traditional and conservative) that left the episcopal church because a liberal bishop over us openly denied the divinity and the doctrine of Sola Christus.
Do you believe that somebody who has never heard the Gospel will be forever tortured by God? Why would God allow such a thing...(1 Jn 4:8) if God is Love? We serve a living God not a man made relgion. Peace in Christ (He is Lord!)
Read Romans 1:19-21 where Paul says that men are without excuse and Knowledge of creation is enough to condemn. There is a lot of mystery in the theology of salvation but eternal separation from God is a reality taught by the Bible and through out the history of Christian thought. I agree God is love, he gives everyone a chance through Christ's atoning death but those who refuse Him have no excuse. If hell doesn't exist then a rapist or a murderer has no reason to fear for his soul.
Scripture says It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" (Rom 14:11),this is not a confession forced by threat of torture but a heartfelt proclamation, scripute says one can only truly confess Jesus if filled with the Spirit of God...so it seems that everyone will , in time, be filled. We do know the translation "eternal" ( as in eteranl hellfire,etc) means "age giving or for age"...Peace!
@1macboo It's a shame how corrupted people can be in their reading of the Bible....You embrace a bunch of new age bullshit....and thats what it is i'm not going to play around with the wording to it. The idea of Eternal hell is clearly stated in 2 Thes 1:9, Jude verse 1:7, and jude 1:12-13. If there is no hell why can't I commit adultery? Why shouldnt I commit murder? Why can't I worship an idol if I'll end up in heaven anyway? You can't answer those questions with "theres much to GAIN"
In the first six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism,The "conversion" of Constantine to Christianity & the legalization of the religion in 313 gave increasing influence to the Roman theological school, which taught eternal torment . The centralization of the Church under Roman imperial authority gave eternal hell it's place in the dogma of the church. Not scripture.
@1macboo Not true at all. There was a minority of early church fathers who questioned the classical view of eternal hell taught in the Jewish and Early Christian tradition but Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Iraneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine all affirm the notion of eternal suffering. But what was certainly debated in the early church was whether an unregenerate sinner's soul was annihilated and destroyed or existent and forever suffering.
@TheArsenalfc101 I mustg disagree...""In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality (annihilationism); one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked"...thats from the The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96
Read works by those names I listed you'll see your wrong. "It would be a more unworthy course for God to spare the evil-doer then to punish him, especially in the most good and holy God, who is not otherwise fully good than as the enemy of evil, and that to such a degree as to display His love of good by the hatred of evil, and to fulfil His defence of the former by the extirpation of the latter." — Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 1, Chapter 26. God is a loving God and a just God
@TheArsenalfc101 and always remember that God "is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10} ..... it says ALL MEN!!! :-) but for us believers we have the great gift of being in Christ now, His adopted children!
@TheArsenalfc101 I know you take the bible literally so you should want to know what the greek means...anyway, what do think a person must believe to be saved? Does a person have to believe in "eternal torture" in order to be saved? How come Paul didn't tell the jailer that in ored to be saved you must believe in Christ, be baptized AND BELIEVE in "eternal torture"? You are likely a catholic and this teaching comes from your church and i respect that. See ya in heaven!
The question is not our condemnation...it is the duration of such things. So much of the Bible is not ment to be literal, of course, so the idea of hell fire and torture is more a midieval idea than a biblical one. Of course there is judgement...and there is GREAT gain to be in Christ. However the idea of an eternal hell is simply not biblical, not if we read the correct translation...of course ancient greek doesn't always translate that well...oh well....peace
God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10 Ever ponder that.
"just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ,through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19
Anyway, chill out, enjoy the summer, love your family,go to church,pray 9and work) for peace, and bring Christ with you always!
"Theology" is an enterprise which can be engaged in by both those within the church and those without ... the church "receives" theologies when it finds them to be true, or reflective of who we believe God to be. Theologies can be profitably studied, without commending them to belief - or even disagreeing with them. The church received Trinitarian Christology in the first two ecumenical councils; the Communion officially accepts the first four.
I think it's safest to say - the question of "adoptionism / eternal divinity of Christ wasn't really a "live issue" for Mark - it isn't really addressed. In a way, it doesn't have to be - it becomes an issue when our theology / theory advances into new areas where challenges arise. Mark did not know of these challenges ... so in a way I find the adoptionist/non-adoptionist distinction to be an anachronism for Mark.
When Paul describes the church as "the body of Christ," he also makes clear that the church is implicated in sin and not only fallible, but always already fallen. Being "the body of Christ" is ... not the kind of metaphor which means "is identical to". The RC church also believes this ... as the Magisterium is also not "the church," but only a part, albeit a significant one.
For a better, contemporary understanding of "dogma" - one can begin in Plato's Republic with the discussion of pistis / doxa (where "dogma" comes from) / episteme / nous - then move forward to phenomenology & Husserl's notion of sedimentation, which has been important for the postmoderns.
The RC Church declared Anglican orders null and void via a Papal Bull. As such, it cannot be rejected because it then becomes part of the magisterium itself. While reason may be important in the R. Church, tradition will always trump it. In any case, reason appears to be something only the church can exercise in a practical level. This approach strikes me as problematic. The RC church paints itself into corners that it finds hard to escape. By the way, I disagree with the RC church re orders.
It seems you might have a populistic notion of this word "dogma" which you are using - to help in this regard it might be good to read the RC encyclical "Fides et Ratio" which clearly points out that reason and teaching (dogma) are not mutually exclusive. Adherence to Trinitarian Christianity is because of reason - for this reason, we "teach" it - and are critical of those claiming to be church leaders, but teaching otherwise - just as gay rights orgs are clear about what their leaders teach.
first off - adoptionism & Mark. Absence of the birth narrative by no means makes Mark an adoptionist, and look at the first verse. Google gospel Mark adoptionism for more info on this.
By no means does the divinity of Christ imply the infallibility of the church - RC's do have a doctrine about the infallibility of magisterium in encyclicals, but this does not logically follow from the teaching of Christ's divinity alone.
Anglicans do not teach adoptionism, this is not Trinitarian.
minckminck, interesting, but I disagree strongly. The number of theologians who consider Mark's Christology adoptionistic is quite large. It is on your second point that I strongly disagree. The RC Church MUST flow from a Christ who is in and of himself holy. The sign and the effect are identified one with the other. The church is the Body of Christ. As such, like Christ, concerning matters of doctrine and faith the church IS infallible. It too is 'holy' for the same reasons.
Thank you for expressing yourself positively - you have presented your views admirably, and are thoughtful to inform yourself of your interlocutor by checking out his Youtube faves. & yes, I'm quite a Shostafan. I look forward to addressing your views sometime soon, and wish to express myself - like your good self - in an eloquent and respectful manner.
minck contines "and the leadership of TEC sometimes seems to be teaching a different gospel. " No, actually it's teaching Jesus' message that grace is freely given. It is broadening circles of inclusion. It appears you're European. Christianity there is on life support largely because of its conduct in the last 1700 years. It has condemned Jews, homosexuals, anyone considered apostates...If this is your idea of Christianity, I want no part of it thank you.
dsindc I am referring to other teachings and not specifically this video. It is not the "official" theology of the 1979 prayerbook but the "practical" theology which is taught & informs the actions of the church. Google Schori Christology for a sampling, or I'd be happy to send you materials. You are right about many churches in Europe, in the States you have many fine churches to choose from, & some parishes & dioceses in TEC are still faithful to the gospel.
It doesn't matter what church you go to, it does matter that you Repent and Trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Don't rely on any good works you do.
Preaching- You need to read up on Anglican history and the Reformation. There was a movement afoot to break from the Roman Church LONG before Henry VIII wanted a divorce. He didn't "start a church."
The Episcopal Church is teaching false. They go against the Bible and believe that you must preform the 7 sacraments to enter Heaven and have salvation. BEWARE of this church.
No, they don't teach that 7 sacraments are necessary for salvation - there are 2 sacraments, and one is not necessarily excluded from salvation without either. But it is true that many are very much compromised, and the leadership of TEC sometimes seems to be teaching a different gospel. You are right though, sadly, to watch out.
Salvation is by faith alone, thats it! Besides the Episcopal Church was started when King Henry wanted to divorce his wife and the pope said no, so he started this church. Why would ANYONE want to go to a church that was started by going against the Bible?
PreachingJesus, study your church history. The RC Church was returned to primacy in England after Henry died by Mary I who was RC, and followed him. The first Anglican Arch. of Cant. Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake. When you say "going against the Bible", what do you mean? Exodus gives me authority to kill my kids if they get out of line. If I have a problem with that, am I "going against the Bible"? We have one Taliban in this world, I don't think we need another.
Wow, I am going to pray for you. I hope that you go back and really look at things, because RC started in 107 AD, and Anglicans are English Catholics, and Episcopal started over King Henry's Divorce. And when you stated that out of Exodus, there is such a thing as content and that was the Old covenant which was fulfilled when Christ died on the Cross.
Where to begin. No one knows when the "church" really began. There is for instance no solid evidence Peter even visited Rome. Episcopalians are Anglicans.. period. In reference to your assertion that the "Old covenant" was fulfilled" etc. then why do so many fundamental protestants base so much of their theology on it? Why for instance do they continue to quote Leviticus ad nauseum? I will pray for you too. More than that, I hope you correct some erroneous ideas. Dominus Vobiscum.
Peter Was NOT the first pope and yes I understand Episcopalians are Anglicans, but it is a separate denomination. And I hope that you stop being fooled by these false Satanic Churches.
The Roman Catholic Church rests upon the "Petrine Authority". According to the church, Peter was indeed the very first pope. I suggest you look this up on Wikipedia, or google. As for the Episcopal Church, it as PART of the Anglican Communion. Again, I suggest you hit Wikipedia. You're young and malleable. It scares me that you use terms like "Satanic Churches". This is not good. I wish you the best in your search.
@PreachingJesusToAll: oh, believe me, there was a LOT more behind that than just Henry's divorce. There was a lot of political goings-on for years prior to that, and the divorce was basically the straw that broke the camel's back or the "final excuse" for a *political* division between the Church in England from the Holy See.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You got that right. I tell you what, most of these false Churches have ties. Mormons (LDS), Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), Jehovah Witness, Anglican, Episcopal, Roman Catholic (RC), Lutheran, Moravian, Pentecostal, Church or Christ, United Church of Christ, Orthodox, and any other of the break offs. You are only really safe to go to Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist (ALL Conservative of course). Also some non denominational churches that follow this doctrine. Christians, don't be deceived!
Why would I join your org. - org. that seems to be the negative version of all the Tradition established 2000 years ago by Christ and his followers and preserved till our time....
Who needs aspartame, when sugar and honey are waiting?
Have a Good Life....
0adammar 1 month ago
How different is an Episcopalian mass from a catholic mass, Im not too happy with the changes in the church. I know that Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches are all similar.
Mauser2012 1 month ago
@Mauser2012 Not too different, although a woman priest may be in charge in an Episcopal service. It wouldn't hurt to try it, if you're really interested.
jimdela 4 weeks ago
@Mauser2012 --The Catholic Mass gives us the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and the Episcopalian Mass and eucharist is invalid because they did not preserve Holy Orders like the "Orthodox" did. Come home to Rome.
ZebraSpider454 4 weeks ago
@EpiscopalMatthew Just as the Jews took Passover to reflect on how God saved them and brought them out of bondage in Egypt, Christ asked us to remember Him and His suffering on our behalf.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew Even the so-called communion has been twisted from its clear Biblical meaning. Christ said: Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me. The bread and the wine is supposed to be a memorial to the Son of Man on the eve of His suffering; not some feat of magic to restore the soul and cleanse people of their sins. It has no power to do that. The Last Supper was a Passover meal held in memorial of the Angel of Death passing over the Children of Israel in Egypt.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew The Bible tells us ritual has no power. In fact, it is a characteristic of idol worship and witchcraft. There is nothing you can do to effect your own salvation. Salvation comes through faith alone. Much of the Liturgy you speak of is the product of Greek and Roman paganism, and not of the Church. The earliest Christians, met in secret and recited scripture. These rituals came much later.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew If you closely study the Old Testament and the Israelites, God in a way, resembles a herdsman and the Israelites a herd. The shepard cuts out the unhealthy, just as God cuts out the unholy, the filthy, and the evil. The herdsmans desired end product is a strong healthy herd. God's desired end product is a people worthy to bring Christ into the world for the salvation of all Mankind. That's why the Israelites are called the "Chosen" people. They are God's own.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew The Holy Spirit didn't influence Moses to make these laws. The Holy Spirit itself made these laws. Moses was merely an instrument. These laws were designed by God to protect Israel from the great evil which surrounded them. Destroying the Satanic Canaanites who sacrificed infants to Baal, Dagon, and Molech, the stoning of the wicked among them...these things were necessary.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew Meaningless ritual and warming a church pew on Sunday morning is no substitute for knowing the Bible.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew Actually, I believe you are referring to Matthew 5:17-18, but again you are taking the scripture out of context. Christ fullfills the Law in that the Law is finished in Him. He is the fullfillment of the promise. If you go back and study the New Testament, you'll see that Christ tells us exactly what we must do to find salvation.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew You are referring to the Law of Moses and the First Covenant. You should know that the Law of Moses has no authority in the Church. We are not Jews. Christ has given us a New Covenant. He did not ask us to give up our possesions. You are taking the Scriptures out of their proper context. Christ was speaking to a rich man who valued his wealth more than God. Why don't you go back and read the chapter from the beginning.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
@EpiscopalMatthew Well first of all, the New Testament commands women to remain silent and have their head covered in public worship. Sorry if that offends your modern sensibilities but if you have a problem with that, your problem is with God's Holy Word, not with me. Christianity does not bare comparison with Catholicism (Roman paganism with a Christian flavor). The Bible is the only Christian authority. Anything and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
gurumagoo 1 month ago
imo there HAS to be a spirit of agreeing, there are of difference in opinion concerning the bible so how would going to this church be any different then going to any other church. follow the spirit.
darkmark420 1 month ago
May The Episcopal Church soon come in Full Communion with the Holy Catholic Church.
dis00612 2 months ago
I usually hate most (insert religious title), but this lady is decent.
UnaverageAdam 3 months ago
Women Ordination is Gross, she should only be a lay person, Women Ordination will ruin that church, thats why the Catholic Church has lasted over 2000 years, because men have ran it,
Catholic00012 3 months ago
Who exactly is it who decides which of Christ's teachings you will accept, and which you will disgard? Do you keep a list so Episcopalians reading the Bible don't become confused?
gurumagoo 5 months ago
Perhaps I don't know much or anything about Episcopals, but at least from my perspective, the Episcopal church shuns spiritual responsibility and is even cowardly in that manner. Episcopals don't seem to actually stand for anything or take a hard line anywhere. It seems like they are willing to compromise on virtually any doctrinal question. Interpretting the Bible must be extremely taxing for an Episcopalian. Better not to read it at all if you are going to openly reject its teachings.
gurumagoo 5 months ago
LOL. It's like a diet coke commericial
Episcopal Church: Same old Catholic Flavor, but with only half the guilt!!!
gurumagoo 5 months ago 2
I did not hear anything that would motivate me to visit an Episcopal Church.
JohnRhysMusician 5 months ago
Minckminck: Your use of the term "election fraud" is misleading and incorrect. There were no irregularities reported or alleged concerning her election as presiding bishop. You seem to have an issue with the way Bishop Jefferts Schori presented some of her experience on her resume prior to her election. If a congregation of 200 calls its Christian education program a "school of theology," it is what it is. Incorrect accusations or downright libel will not be tolerated on this channel.
jimdela 8 months ago 2
@jimdela Why then did she call herself "Dean" in the Ministry Experience information? I'd say "Dean of the Good Shepherd School of Theology of Corvallis OR" would lead many voters to believe she'd been something other than head of adult education classes at her parish. Furthermore this wasn't reported so on her election as Diocesan bishop of Nevada. Google Good Samaritan School of Theology for more info.
minckminck 7 months ago
@jimdela I should also mention: I don't mean to accuse the PB of election fraud ... it's simply that one can get to this info by googling this. My apologies if I left a different impression.
minckminck 7 months ago
@jimdela What would be more accurate is to say there was "very likely" election fraud. The problem surfaced after the election; it's complicated b/c some Episcopalians claim that it's common for churches to call their Christian education (i.e., Sunday School) programs a "school of theology"; but this case is very weak. It's almost certain that there was some intent to deceive; and that Jefferts-Schori herself was aware of this.
minckminck 7 months ago
Another thing to consider about her is her election - google Jefferts-Schori election fraud - you'll see that the career information presented for her election as Presiding Bishop isn't true. This has been confirmed indirectly by the central office of TEC in New York. A good question here is: do I want to trust my faith to this woman's teaching? From the election evidence, I would say "no."
minckminck 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Episcopal Church is firmly entrenched as the laughingstock of Christendom! . Episcopal churches continue to close and the denomination dwindles. The Episcopal Church has lost it's theological moorings and is fading away.
1dogsamson 9 months ago
you guys are losers
deleon555 9 months ago
OMG, WOW
I was raised in the Episcopal church but left when I was 16
THIS LADY MAKES ME REGRET THAT
*lovelovelove*
And considering I am the dirtiest of fundamentalists, I am surprised by how much I like her o.O But seriously- why did NO ONE TELL ME she was fantastic???
TheGreatScott7 10 months ago
When the Episcopal Church began ordaining homosexuals and marrying homosexuals, they gave themselves over to Satan without pretense. If you are a christian, flee from this evil organization. You are disgracing Jesus Christ by sanctioning this abomination with your presence.
MaryWaterton 1 year ago
@MaryWaterton From your posts and your page I would have to say you think about homosexuality more than the vast majority of homosexuals. Does this fact about yourself concern you? If I were you I would attempt to examine the real movites behind the obessive ideation I was exhibiting.
NeoVictorianX 1 year ago
@MaryWaterton Flee? You sound delusional.
zaynzaynzayn 1 year ago
This teaching will develope your relationship with god I am absolutily convinced,but its not the God of the Bible
stevespark123 1 year ago
This is so lame and pathetic. What she says about the Episcopal Church does not distinguish it from almost any other church; the same things could be said about the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Eastern Orthodox. I find this kind of clerical b.s. so depressing and discouraging.
kkallebb 1 year ago
@kkallebb except she fails to mention how the Episcopal Church might as well be a new age group of druids who think that relativism is above the objective truths of the Gospel (hence the reason why their doctrine is absurd these days). It used to be a good church that adhered to traditional Anglicanism, but now it is filled with a bunch of leftist hippies who don't believe in absolute truth at all and many Episcopal Bishops have outright denied the divinity of Christ and the Bible.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 Amen and she is a heretic...
clarkbailey1973 1 year ago
Bizarre. This video was 'recommended' to me by youtube, and yet it's a nonsense video that is implicitly stating that other communities are not supportive, other communities are not full of a diverse group of folk, other people won't challenge you, etc.
Utter crap, yet more empty-headed religious nonsense.
Youtube, youtube, why hast thou forsaken me?!?!?
brilyn 1 year ago
The comments are even more interesting...
sounddoctrinegospel 1 year ago
Why does she dress like a man?
singapore7773 1 year ago
@singapore7773
Because she knows being a Man is a requirment for Valid orders - thats if Anglican orders were valid (which they are certainly not).
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@singapore7773 well, she doesn't actually. Also: gender norms in clothing are artificial social constructs created by specific societies to meet their structural needs. There are churches that are very traditionalist where women go barebreasted because that is the social norm, there are churches where men and women where whatever they want, so long as it is culturally modest, and there are other traditionalist churches. "men's" clothes are just what we make them to be.
episconerd 8 months ago
Just take a Look at who is preaching then find another church.
martlut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am no longer an Episcopalian. But I can think of no better way into the practice of the whole of the Christian experience than the Episcopal way. Being an Episcopalian is like going to college in Christianity. Or at least it is there for the taking. The Episcopal experience brings a great deal of the Catholic experience and the thousands of years of thought and consideration; but it also brings with it the English critical enquiry, the enormously problematic questions of the English heritage.
episcospanky 1 year ago
I am no longer an Episcopalian. But I can think of no better way into the practice of the whole of the Christian experience than the Episcopal way. Being an Episcopalian is like going to college in Christianity. Or at least it is there for the taking. The Episcopal experience brings a great deal of the Catholic experience and the thousands of years of thought and consideration; but it also brings with it the English critical enquiry, the enormously problematic questions of the English heritage.
episcospanky 1 year ago
@episcospanky That's a good way to put it. Why, if you don't mind me asking, are you no longer Episcopalian?
episconerd 8 months ago
I can tell you why you shouldn't become an Episcopalian:
Because the Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ, and the founder of the Episcopalian sect was the murderous tyrant Henry VIII, who invented his own religion so that he could divorce as he pleased and loot the monasteries.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 That is certainly one view of the matter. Viewed most positively, however, Henry VIII wished to establish the national identity of England and free it from the control of the Italian popes. The pope probably would have granted Henry the annulment, except that Catherine's nephew, King Charles of Spain, was laying siege to Rome.
mindspring57 1 year ago
@mindspring57
No: it is not merely "one view" it is the Truth, which is not subjective. The reason which I gave for Henry's founding of the Anglican sect is a historic fact, which is well documented. That Henry was trying to "free" England from Iitalian" power is absurd, given Henry's published defence of the Papacy to counter Martin Luther and the reformers; for which he was awarded his title by the Pope. That is until he wanted to break Christs law himself.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 Seriously? The break-away, which has little significance in the grand scheme of things for the Episcopal church, was much more about national identity. The Reformation and counter-reformation are the roots of most of the European Nations and the idea of nation-hood. It was far more political, and it was Thomas Cranmer who was leading the religious side of things.
episconerd 8 months ago
@iotaunam1
Is the Orthodox Church excluded from this also, then?
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
Christ only founded one Church - the Catholic Church. All others are schismatic and/or heretical. The so called "orthodox" deny Papal Primacy which is doctrine taught by Christ and Clearly proven by Scripture and Tradition. The Greek fathers prove this. PM me to discuss the Scriptural evidence if you wish.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 Oh thank you for clearing that up for me. I am a heretic belonging to the so-called Orthodox Church. Anyway, there is nothing for us to discuss because unfortunately, your description and judgment of other Christians shows your malcontent. Your information is distorted, unfortunately, and needs to be studied more carefully.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
The Papacy is clearly Biblical. You cannot pick and choose doctrines. That is what heresy in the Greek refers to.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 No, heresy refers to continuous perpetuation of distorted teaching. Papal supremacy, infallibility, immaculate conception, purgatory were all teachings scholastically developed over time and recently.
Rome is beautiful, we don't deny that. She is first in honor, yes and we love her. But if the Vatican has agreed recently that it's teachings of supremacy and infallibility must go in order to achieve unity with the East, then this would negate your whole point.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
I cant even get into the issues in depth here. I know very well what heresy is. A denial of Papal Primacy is heresy. The doctrines you mention were not "developed" at all. Yes, they may have been defined more clearly - but they were all doctrines of Christ. Christ founded only one Church- with one authority. The Catholic Church HAS unity already: it does not need to be sought - this is a dogma. Unity of faith and government in the one Church Christ founded- thats true Unity.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 I believe you can't get into this issue in depth because you are not reading what I wrote, therefore it's difficult to communicate. Again, we do not deny the primacy of Rome, but Rome was always a first amongst equals. There is one Authority, yes you are correct and that is Christ.
I wish you would calm down a little; anger, haughtiness and super-correctness is not befitting of our hearts, but only our passions, the things that only bring suffering. Again, my warmest wishes!
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
No, I won't get into the issue here in small comment boxes. I have offered to discuss indepth by PM, but 9 time out of 10 people do not/cannot discuss the issue in depth, and therefore continue to post small one liners. If you want to debate/discuss the issue in depth I will be happy to by PM. Also, the "anger" you mention does not exist on my part; I am just tired of having to refute the same errors so many time. I have debated this issue too many times to remember.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 I gather you are infallible and without fault. I stand corrected. Thank you.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
Thats not what I said -read what I wrote. Also, I thought you would refuse an indepth debate on the issue.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
Comment removed
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iotaunam1 I didn't refuse anything. No matter what anyone states you will deny it, utilizing and juxtaposing Scripture to suit your own interpretation and is the only reasoning you can use to justify your claims. History provides different insight.
The Orthodox Church is not heretical; we have never had a reformation, if I may remind you. Regardless, you may think whatever you want, this is your choice. I just hope you don't approach people with such indignation as you do on here.
Take care.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
Either debate the issue in depth or forget about it. Your choice. The reason people are afraid of debates on these and other issues is becuase deep down they know they are wrong, and fear truths being presented which refute and contradict their position. I believe, after so many offers, that you fall into this category unfortunately. You talk about my position being wrong, and yet you refuse to discuss the issue further.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 Spoken like a true papist and grand inquisitor. Don't hand ultimatums because you're ill prepared to do so and it's unnessary. You need to calm down, I never said you are wrong. However, there are distortions in your statements. As I stated, show me besides juxtaposing Scripture, where your claims are genuine.
Show me historically, and NOT by manipulating Scripture, that the Orthodox are heretical. Does this mean we are going to hell? Will we be looking up at you, my friend?
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
Funny how you accuse me of being ill prepared, when in fact you refuse to discuss the issue. Perhaps if you actually accepted my offer to discuss in depth, then you could make such a claim. Also, the So-called "ultimatum" is the only way to settle the issue. Either you discuss indepth or not at all - period. There is nothing wrong with this, nor with a refusal - but when you expect me to refute your arguments using Scripture in small comment boxes, thats just ridiculous.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 More importantly, where does this disdain and repugnance come from? Why are you so condescending towards anyone that isn't what you would consider, a true Roman Catholic?
Don't you pray for the unity of hearts, instead of keeping them torn? Is this the way you approach anyone who isn't like you?
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488 If I have any disdain, it is merely for error. I do not hate anyone, but the errors against the faith cannot just be brushed under the carpet, like the ecumenists would have.Truth is not subjective; matters of the faith are serious.
Romans 16:17:-"Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." -Not too many ecumenists reading these parts of Scripture; Unity is only in the True Church.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 I am not accusing you, read carefully. Can you do that? Please, just try. I asked you clearly, WITHOUT JUXTAPOSING SCRIPTURE (which you did anyway), show me how the Orthodox Church is heretical. WITHOUT JUXTAPOSING SCRIPTURE to fit your own meaning. Historically, back up your claim that only Rome is the Truth; explain why Rome tore away from the 4 other Patriarchates. Why were all 7 Ecumenical Councils held in Constantinople, not Rome. READ CAREFULLY and then follow your claim.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
Firstly, there were more than 7 Ecumenical councils - perhaps you should ask yourself why the so-called orthodox stopped at seven and the Catholic Church CONTINUES to have ecumenical councils. Secondly, not even the seven you mention were all held in constantinople!
I have made you a fair offer. You cannot expect me to prove my position from Scripture and refute yours using 500 characters in these comment boxes. I have offered to discuss this indepth: offer still stands.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 Rome continued to have councils after the schism; again, the arrogance and condescension is amazing. "So-called" Orthodox?
First, I apologize, you are correct. The 7 Councils were not all in Constantinople, an error on my part of rushing during a break at work. They were held in Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and the first, in Jerusalem of which St. Peter did not preside, rather St. James did.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
@ponyboy1488
I use the "so called" in front of "orthodox" for the same reason I use it before "reformation". Only the True Church is Orthodox properly so called.
Again, I will not discuss here. PM if you want to discuss indepth.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 It's silly to say you will prove things such as this church, whatever it is, is the "Only" and "True" one. Nothing in theology or the Bible offers that type of certainty. You might desire it, but it isn't there. And you refer to Orthodoxy. If you are so orthodox, why has Rome shown a tendency to excommunicate your ilk. From a mainstream Christian, or even Roman Catholic, perspective Hans Kuhn should be considered more orthodox than a Traditionalist Romanist like yourself.
NeoVictorianX 1 year ago
@NeoVictorianX
No: theological and dogmatic certainty is the only thing we can be sure of. You yourself are a liberal and relativist, therefore you deny what is clearly a fact. If there was no such certainlty in these matters I might be inclined to found my own church, like you did or your founded did: but the truth is undeniable.
If you want to debate indepth on the Biblical proof for Catholicism, PM me: if not, then don't comment on something you know nothing about.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 I'm neither liberal nor subscribe to relativism. But I do believe that in matters of importance, truth is subjectivity. We are saved only by an encounter and relationship with God, an opportunity given us by God having broken into human history via Jesus Christ. Not false certainty in "The Church" or in the Bible (Biblical irrerancy). I'm not saying anything bad about Catholicism or the Bible, but they're objects of idolatry when they have replaced Christ crucified.
NeoVictorianX 1 year ago
@NeoVictorianX
What you claim to subscribe to is superflous, given that you admit that you hold Truth to be "subjectivity". Truth is OBJECTIVE not subjective. When Christ preaches a doctrine as True it is True for that very reason, since Christ is Truth Itself. The Church or Scripture are not worshiped- you have a false concept of Catholicism. The Church preaches Christ Cruicified, as St Paul. Catholicsm is the ONLY Biblical faith. PM to debate indepth if you want.
iotaunam1 1 year ago
@iotaunam1 What does it mean, then, that our faith rests in a person as Truth? That is to say, how is it different that Jesus Christ is Truth, as opposed to a principle or dogma? Our faith rests in RELATIONSHIP with God, through the person of Jesus, the Child of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the community of All of God's Saints.
episconerd 8 months ago
@episconerd
Yes, Jesus Christ is the very Truth in flesh. Thus, faith in the person of Christ is faith in the Truth. Dogmas are truths taught by Jesus Christ who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Those who reject His teachings do not have faith in Him however much they claim to and say "Lord, Lord" etc. The Catholic Church alone is the one true faith founded by Christ Himself. Anglicanism is the invention of a King who rebelled and wanted to fulfill his sinful lusts against the faith.
iotaunam1 8 months ago
@iotaunam1 Thank you for reducing my church and the movement to which it belongs to a single event that has little relevance today. Your catholic alone nonsense relies on several assumptions: namely that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and completely consistent, and the same for the Pope. I could also criticize your church for its genocidal and authoritarian history throughout most of medieval Europe, for condemning scientific exploration for centuries, and for other things. But I digress.
episconerd 8 months ago
@episconerd
The Catholic Church alone was founded by Christ. Henry VIII founded the Anglican sect: this is denied by no historian nor anyone with half a brain and good will. And yes, the Church Christ founded and it ALONE is the only means of Salvation. This was taught 1500 years before the founded of your sect/ "movement" was born. Also, you prove you are not remotely Christian when you attack the innerancy of Scripture. You make your own religion to suit yourself. PM if you want to debate.
iotaunam1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iotaunam1 What Rome did after the schism is up to Rome, which went it's own way clearly. Vatincan I, Vatican II, modifications of doctrines and beliefs. Again, unless I'm mistaken, you had a Reformation, didn't you?
Ponyboy1488@hotmail.com. Please write, you're more than welcome to. But leave the arrogance, the anger and heretic-branding out of it. It's inappropriate and you should know better. Your parents should have raised you better than that, and I'm sure they did.
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
Comment removed
ponyboy1488 1 year ago
I am Jewish, I'm also a Believer the liturgy has nothing to do with Judaism!
MenechemShaul 1 year ago
"You have ministry by virtue of being baptized"
I would love it, if someone could think of one single Christian denomination or Church that doesn't believe that. Heck even pseudo Christians like Mormons believe that.
addictedkoala 1 year ago
@addictedkoala Amen!
MenechemShaul 1 year ago
@addictedkoala The Religious Society of Friends. There are also many who believe that baptism isn't that which gives you that power, that there is a baptism of the holy spirit that is separate from the baptism of water (Pentecostals and Assemblies of God). Religious Studies major here, sorry. There's your answer, though.
episconerd 8 months ago
an oppurtunity to experience the love of a motherly leadership. I could experience the love of Blessed Mother Mary not only in Rosary devotion but also in hierarchy as shown by a female bishop. Virgin Mary was conceived in Holy Spirit, therefore the same Spirit manifest its fullness in a woman Bishop. Mary is not just a statue and icon which we've seen but also walking among us, speaking for justice and love of Christ. If Im a little Jesus on earth, we also have little Mary on earth.
mariatinaza 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First error I see in the episcopal church is they have women leaders; that's against scripture. 1 Timothy 2:11ff "a woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 1 Corinthians 14:35ff "since God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says..
mrdarriuswoods 1 year ago
Why should I not be an Episcopalian? The bishop is a woman. It thinks everyone is a "minister." They pretend to be traditional, even though they are rebellious like any other Protestant group. They pretend to love each other.
WeepingStellaMaris 1 year ago
@WeepingStellaMaris i love you.. so am i pretending..
so sad you still living in the 16th century.. You pretending to worship God as in the grandeur of Tradition but in your heart full of deceit.. Love in Christ! JMJ+++
mariatinaza 1 year ago
@mariatinaza Card. Billot, under Pope Pius XI, explained this in a work entitled: De Immutabilitate Traditionis Contra Modernam Haeresim Evolutionismi, Concerning the Immutability of Sacred Tradition (1929). This is no invention or opinion, it is the most classic doctrine of the Church: Tradition does not change. In fact, the word tradition comes from the Latin tradere which means to transmit. Tradition is the transmission without change of that which has been deposited.
WeepingStellaMaris 1 year ago
@WeepingStellaMaris Thanks for the definition: too bad they don't live up to it, and spend too much time belittling the LGBT community, women, and non-Catholics.
episconerd 8 months ago
@WeepingStellaMaris Thanks for referring to Katharine ++ as "it". Everyone is a minister, and has a ministry. God has a plan for each of us: this is entirely biblical.
episconerd 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Episcopal Church is such a waste outside of liturgy. Most scholars say it won't exist in 50-100 years
wtopp23 1 year ago
"Why should you be an Episcopalian?" You should be an Episcopalian if you are looking for glitz without guilt, for a "religious experience" that does not demand faith or commitment, and for an organization that promotes the view that "anything goes."
mindspring57 1 year ago
@mindspring57 very accurate.
wtopp23 1 year ago
"Really, anything goes?" They've been hiding that from me the last 13 years. I'll have to look into it.
My Episcopal church doesn't have any glitz, so I guess I need to find one that does. No faith or commitment? I'll have to find one of those churches too, because that goes against how I've been taught. Wow, thanks for opening my eyes.
Once gain, thanks, I'll be sure to let my priest know that "anything goes", because he's been doing it all wrong.
cyclone2591 1 year ago
Comment removed
mindspring57 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cyclone2591 Yes. Anything goes. A gay bishop in New Hampshire, a lesbian suffragan in Los Angeles, and, at 0:50 your presiding bishop says "we don't all think the same thing." In other words, anything goes! An Episcopal church in Phoenix had a Jewish rabbi in residence who preached from the pulpit. Check out Robin Williams' "Top Ten Reasons to be an Episcopalian."
mindspring57 1 year ago
@cyclone2591 Google "Top Ten Reasons to Be An Episcopalian." A gay bishop in NH and a lesbian suffragan in LA, I say anything goes. In a little over 50 years, the Episcopal church now tolerates abortion on demand and does not condemn partial birth abortion. The gay bishop from NH encourages his priests not to perform wedding ceremonies (even opposite sex) saying they should be married civilly and come to church to get blessed. That is his method of promoting "equality" with same sex couples.
mindspring57 1 year ago
@cyclone2591 AMEN! People keep telling me that's what my church believes: I've met Katharine++ 3 times and she believes more than most Evangelicals I know. They keep telling me we're all ritual and catholic lite, and I have seen more devotion in my Episcopal friends than in most of my Catholic friends. They tell me we don't stand for anything when it was an Episcopal church that said that I had a calling, it is the Episcopal church, with other mainline denominations that is standing for the poor
episconerd 8 months ago
I met her....by far the most amazing person I've ever had the honor to meet.
furley523 1 year ago
@furley523 I met her too and I sharer your sentiment!
2catlvr1969 1 year ago
@furley523 I met Harry Connick Jr. That was pretty cool.
sidewalkpilot 1 year ago
the episcopal church came fom the anglican church and the anglican church came from king henry 8 not from god there for its wrong
kingalejandro1 1 year ago
@kingalejandro1 and the Anglican church came from the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church shares roots w/ both Judaism and Islam. So unless your argument is against all western religions, I'm afraid I'm not following you.
bibliogirl21 1 year ago
@kingalejandro1 Q question-do you think God fell asleep during the 16th century? At that time the Catholic Church was running on a secular platform and not sacred one. God used William Tyndale, Martin Luther and even Henry VIII to split off from the church because people at that time needed to hear the word and be baptised, not be under the thumb of a pope and priests who didn't even know what the bible said in latin, much less apply it to their lives.
AnglicanNew 1 year ago
@kingalejandro1 I don't think any church came from God. No Episcopalian (a pretty liberal group) would claim their church does.
MassLiberal1 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
FLJesse, I do wish what you say were true of the Presiding Bishop and those who lead the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately it's far from true for these people.
minckminck 1 year ago
@minckminck Have you met them? have you had conversations with them? prayed with them? worshipped with them? I didn't think so. Stop taking soundbytes and using them against these people. As per usual, the saints of God are attacked.
episconerd 8 months ago
@episconerd I have carefully read their writings with a charitable eye, and drawn my conclusion. Google Jefferts-Schori denies resurrection and you'll find some interesting reading material.
minckminck 8 months ago
@minckminck I just did, to see what sorts of things one can ascertain through the interwebs. I maintain what I said. Given that this is a comment section, I can't be convinced that you have sufficient knowledge of her or her theology to make the sorts of judgments you are making. Additionally, what I have read compels me to defend her all the more as one who believes in the Gospel and in the Resurrection:
I remain unconvinced. Meaning does not mean disbelief.
episconerd 8 months ago
@episconerd What matters more is what she teaches, not what she believes (which strictly speaking we can't know for sure). Re. the resurrection: she teaches that whether it happened or not is unimportant; she always directs our attention away from the resurrection itself by "metamorphizing" it and getting us to think about other things - e.g. environmentalism. Not that this isn't important - it simply isn't the resurrection. Read #1 when you google, it's long. You can also PM me with questions.
minckminck 8 months ago
@minckminck No, actually, that's not the point at all. She isn't directing them away from the Resurrection itself, but trying to get the church (specifically the Episcopal church, which needs to be directed in this way) to understand how the Resurrection affects us even today. That BECAUSE we believe in the Resurrection our lives should be transformed. That's her theology, and that's what she teaches. I read through both of them, and respectfully disagree.
episconerd 8 months ago
@episconerd You'd need to see her many references to Sallie McFague and Marcus Borg, know her affiliation with Bishop Spong; also look through her Easter sermons & other relevant material. Unless you think "the resurrection is just a metaphor & if it happened isn't really important," you'll see that she's pointing away from the event itself, and speaking of "transformation" in terms of the change she'd like to see with her political aims (many good, but still not the same as the resurrection).
minckminck 8 months ago
Comment removed
minckminck 8 months ago
@episconerd I had a look at your profile and really enjoyed your Crescent Fresh video. Sifl & Olly rock!
minckminck 8 months ago
1 Corintios 14:33
porque Dios no es Dios de confusión, sino de paz, como en todas las iglesias de los santos.
DominicanoOR 1 year ago
As an Episcopalian I can say that Jesus is the focus and center of what we are about. The love and power of God are limitless but the heats and minds of men are small.
FLJesse 1 year ago 2
Great response!
revkeithyamamoto 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I abhore the ECUSA. It left Jesus years ago. No one should be an Episcopalian.
50heaven 1 year ago
I am Episcopalian. I love this church. So sorry you feel this way.
johnslitch1 1 year ago
I beseech you to re-examine the Scriptures then.
50heaven 1 year ago
@50heaven The episcopal church uses scripture in litgury and communion.
AnglicanNew 1 year ago
@AnglicanNew Yes but so has every heretical faction of believers in the history of christianity.....Using it wrongly is more dangerous than not using it at all.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 I agree in part with you. Using it dangerously is worse than not at all, however if the bible were never translated, few people would know what the bible actually said. The potential for misleading people become greater, the herectical faction goes up higher. The responsiblity of every christian regardless of denomination to know what the bible says.
AnglicanNew 1 year ago
@AnglicanNew Well yes but what Bishop Schori preaches is certainly not what the Bible says, in fact, she completely dismisses 1900 years of Christian tradition and thought with her new age relativism.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 And??? Here's the thing, I'm episcopalian for me. I'm not episcopalian for Bishop Schori. I've never heard her say anything 'new age relativism', unless your talking about the policy on homosexuality. I actually support it because all people should know God loves them, and let God change them, not be chastised by the congregants.
Anyway, it's not supposed to be about 'tradition' or even policy. The church, ANY CHURCH, should be about God.
AnglicanNew 1 year ago
@AnglicanNew She claims that Christ is not the only way man....She thinks if you're a moral Jew or Muslim that hasn't heard the gospel that somehow you could be saved by your sincerity and morality. Creation is enough to condemn. This new way of preaching is new age crap that the episcopal church preaches. Im part of an Anglican church (traditional and conservative) that left the episcopal church because a liberal bishop over us openly denied the divinity and the doctrine of Sola Christus.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101
Do you believe that somebody who has never heard the Gospel will be forever tortured by God? Why would God allow such a thing...(1 Jn 4:8) if God is Love? We serve a living God not a man made relgion. Peace in Christ (He is Lord!)
1macboo 1 year ago
Read Romans 1:19-21 where Paul says that men are without excuse and Knowledge of creation is enough to condemn. There is a lot of mystery in the theology of salvation but eternal separation from God is a reality taught by the Bible and through out the history of Christian thought. I agree God is love, he gives everyone a chance through Christ's atoning death but those who refuse Him have no excuse. If hell doesn't exist then a rapist or a murderer has no reason to fear for his soul.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
Scripture says It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" (Rom 14:11),this is not a confession forced by threat of torture but a heartfelt proclamation, scripute says one can only truly confess Jesus if filled with the Spirit of God...so it seems that everyone will , in time, be filled. We do know the translation "eternal" ( as in eteranl hellfire,etc) means "age giving or for age"...Peace!
1macboo 1 year ago
@1macboo It's a shame how corrupted people can be in their reading of the Bible....You embrace a bunch of new age bullshit....and thats what it is i'm not going to play around with the wording to it. The idea of Eternal hell is clearly stated in 2 Thes 1:9, Jude verse 1:7, and jude 1:12-13. If there is no hell why can't I commit adultery? Why shouldnt I commit murder? Why can't I worship an idol if I'll end up in heaven anyway? You can't answer those questions with "theres much to GAIN"
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
In the first six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism,The "conversion" of Constantine to Christianity & the legalization of the religion in 313 gave increasing influence to the Roman theological school, which taught eternal torment . The centralization of the Church under Roman imperial authority gave eternal hell it's place in the dogma of the church. Not scripture.
1macboo 1 year ago
@1macboo Not true at all. There was a minority of early church fathers who questioned the classical view of eternal hell taught in the Jewish and Early Christian tradition but Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Iraneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine all affirm the notion of eternal suffering. But what was certainly debated in the early church was whether an unregenerate sinner's soul was annihilated and destroyed or existent and forever suffering.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 I mustg disagree...""In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality (annihilationism); one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked"...thats from the The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96
1macboo 1 year ago
Read works by those names I listed you'll see your wrong. "It would be a more unworthy course for God to spare the evil-doer then to punish him, especially in the most good and holy God, who is not otherwise fully good than as the enemy of evil, and that to such a degree as to display His love of good by the hatred of evil, and to fulfil His defence of the former by the extirpation of the latter." — Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 1, Chapter 26. God is a loving God and a just God
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 ....We are like kids, each trying to prove the other wrong. :-)
Perhaps we should just say fairwell. I'm sure we have other things to be doing....I wish you blessings and peace on your journey !
1macboo 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 and always remember that God "is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10} ..... it says ALL MEN!!! :-) but for us believers we have the great gift of being in Christ now, His adopted children!
1macboo 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101 I know you take the bible literally so you should want to know what the greek means...anyway, what do think a person must believe to be saved? Does a person have to believe in "eternal torture" in order to be saved? How come Paul didn't tell the jailer that in ored to be saved you must believe in Christ, be baptized AND BELIEVE in "eternal torture"? You are likely a catholic and this teaching comes from your church and i respect that. See ya in heaven!
1macboo 1 year ago
@TheArsenalfc101
The question is not our condemnation...it is the duration of such things. So much of the Bible is not ment to be literal, of course, so the idea of hell fire and torture is more a midieval idea than a biblical one. Of course there is judgement...and there is GREAT gain to be in Christ. However the idea of an eternal hell is simply not biblical, not if we read the correct translation...of course ancient greek doesn't always translate that well...oh well....peace
1macboo 1 year ago
God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10 Ever ponder that.
"just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ,through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19
Anyway, chill out, enjoy the summer, love your family,go to church,pray 9and work) for peace, and bring Christ with you always!
1macboo 1 year ago
"Theology" is an enterprise which can be engaged in by both those within the church and those without ... the church "receives" theologies when it finds them to be true, or reflective of who we believe God to be. Theologies can be profitably studied, without commending them to belief - or even disagreeing with them. The church received Trinitarian Christology in the first two ecumenical councils; the Communion officially accepts the first four.
minckminck 2 years ago
I think it's safest to say - the question of "adoptionism / eternal divinity of Christ wasn't really a "live issue" for Mark - it isn't really addressed. In a way, it doesn't have to be - it becomes an issue when our theology / theory advances into new areas where challenges arise. Mark did not know of these challenges ... so in a way I find the adoptionist/non-adoptionist distinction to be an anachronism for Mark.
minckminck 2 years ago
dsindc
When Paul describes the church as "the body of Christ," he also makes clear that the church is implicated in sin and not only fallible, but always already fallen. Being "the body of Christ" is ... not the kind of metaphor which means "is identical to". The RC church also believes this ... as the Magisterium is also not "the church," but only a part, albeit a significant one.
minckminck 2 years ago
For a better, contemporary understanding of "dogma" - one can begin in Plato's Republic with the discussion of pistis / doxa (where "dogma" comes from) / episteme / nous - then move forward to phenomenology & Husserl's notion of sedimentation, which has been important for the postmoderns.
minckminck 2 years ago
The RC Church declared Anglican orders null and void via a Papal Bull. As such, it cannot be rejected because it then becomes part of the magisterium itself. While reason may be important in the R. Church, tradition will always trump it. In any case, reason appears to be something only the church can exercise in a practical level. This approach strikes me as problematic. The RC church paints itself into corners that it finds hard to escape. By the way, I disagree with the RC church re orders.
dsindc 2 years ago
It seems you might have a populistic notion of this word "dogma" which you are using - to help in this regard it might be good to read the RC encyclical "Fides et Ratio" which clearly points out that reason and teaching (dogma) are not mutually exclusive. Adherence to Trinitarian Christianity is because of reason - for this reason, we "teach" it - and are critical of those claiming to be church leaders, but teaching otherwise - just as gay rights orgs are clear about what their leaders teach.
minckminck 2 years ago
dsindc
first off - adoptionism & Mark. Absence of the birth narrative by no means makes Mark an adoptionist, and look at the first verse. Google gospel Mark adoptionism for more info on this.
By no means does the divinity of Christ imply the infallibility of the church - RC's do have a doctrine about the infallibility of magisterium in encyclicals, but this does not logically follow from the teaching of Christ's divinity alone.
Anglicans do not teach adoptionism, this is not Trinitarian.
minckminck 2 years ago
minckminck, interesting, but I disagree strongly. The number of theologians who consider Mark's Christology adoptionistic is quite large. It is on your second point that I strongly disagree. The RC Church MUST flow from a Christ who is in and of himself holy. The sign and the effect are identified one with the other. The church is the Body of Christ. As such, like Christ, concerning matters of doctrine and faith the church IS infallible. It too is 'holy' for the same reasons.
dsindc 2 years ago
dsnic - Ton Koopman describing Bach's cantata Aus der Tiefe
(totally unrelated to what we were talking about, but if you like good music, you'll likely enjoy this)
watch?v=_JY2RsBYSEM
(the vid id - youtube erases coments that have got links in them, you have to put this after the youtube domain name)
these vids with Ton Koopman are excellent
minckminck 2 years ago
dsinc,
Thank you for expressing yourself positively - you have presented your views admirably, and are thoughtful to inform yourself of your interlocutor by checking out his Youtube faves. & yes, I'm quite a Shostafan. I look forward to addressing your views sometime soon, and wish to express myself - like your good self - in an eloquent and respectful manner.
minckminck 2 years ago
minck contines "and the leadership of TEC sometimes seems to be teaching a different gospel. " No, actually it's teaching Jesus' message that grace is freely given. It is broadening circles of inclusion. It appears you're European. Christianity there is on life support largely because of its conduct in the last 1700 years. It has condemned Jews, homosexuals, anyone considered apostates...If this is your idea of Christianity, I want no part of it thank you.
dsindc 2 years ago
dsindc I am referring to other teachings and not specifically this video. It is not the "official" theology of the 1979 prayerbook but the "practical" theology which is taught & informs the actions of the church. Google Schori Christology for a sampling, or I'd be happy to send you materials. You are right about many churches in Europe, in the States you have many fine churches to choose from, & some parishes & dioceses in TEC are still faithful to the gospel.
minckminck 2 years ago
It doesn't matter what church you go to, it does matter that you Repent and Trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Don't rely on any good works you do.
Ephesians2:8-9
EmergingGrub 2 years ago
Preaching- You need to read up on Anglican history and the Reformation. There was a movement afoot to break from the Roman Church LONG before Henry VIII wanted a divorce. He didn't "start a church."
2catlvr1969 2 years ago
Min-I've visited other churches and all I saw was intolerance. The "believe THIS or go to Hell" stance is NOT my thing.
2catlvr1969 2 years ago
The Episcopal Church is teaching false. They go against the Bible and believe that you must preform the 7 sacraments to enter Heaven and have salvation. BEWARE of this church.
PreachingJesusToAll 2 years ago
No, they don't teach that 7 sacraments are necessary for salvation - there are 2 sacraments, and one is not necessarily excluded from salvation without either. But it is true that many are very much compromised, and the leadership of TEC sometimes seems to be teaching a different gospel. You are right though, sadly, to watch out.
minckminck 2 years ago
Salvation is by faith alone, thats it! Besides the Episcopal Church was started when King Henry wanted to divorce his wife and the pope said no, so he started this church. Why would ANYONE want to go to a church that was started by going against the Bible?
PreachingJesusToAll 2 years ago
PreachingJesus, study your church history. The RC Church was returned to primacy in England after Henry died by Mary I who was RC, and followed him. The first Anglican Arch. of Cant. Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake. When you say "going against the Bible", what do you mean? Exodus gives me authority to kill my kids if they get out of line. If I have a problem with that, am I "going against the Bible"? We have one Taliban in this world, I don't think we need another.
dsindc 2 years ago
Wow, I am going to pray for you. I hope that you go back and really look at things, because RC started in 107 AD, and Anglicans are English Catholics, and Episcopal started over King Henry's Divorce. And when you stated that out of Exodus, there is such a thing as content and that was the Old covenant which was fulfilled when Christ died on the Cross.
PreachingJesusToAll 2 years ago
Where to begin. No one knows when the "church" really began. There is for instance no solid evidence Peter even visited Rome. Episcopalians are Anglicans.. period. In reference to your assertion that the "Old covenant" was fulfilled" etc. then why do so many fundamental protestants base so much of their theology on it? Why for instance do they continue to quote Leviticus ad nauseum? I will pray for you too. More than that, I hope you correct some erroneous ideas. Dominus Vobiscum.
dsindc 2 years ago
Peter Was NOT the first pope and yes I understand Episcopalians are Anglicans, but it is a separate denomination. And I hope that you stop being fooled by these false Satanic Churches.
PreachingJesusToAll 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Roman Catholic Church rests upon the "Petrine Authority". According to the church, Peter was indeed the very first pope. I suggest you look this up on Wikipedia, or google. As for the Episcopal Church, it as PART of the Anglican Communion. Again, I suggest you hit Wikipedia. You're young and malleable. It scares me that you use terms like "Satanic Churches". This is not good. I wish you the best in your search.
dsindc 2 years ago
@PreachingJesusToAll: oh, believe me, there was a LOT more behind that than just Henry's divorce. There was a lot of political goings-on for years prior to that, and the divorce was basically the straw that broke the camel's back or the "final excuse" for a *political* division between the Church in England from the Holy See.
chalicechiq 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You got that right. I tell you what, most of these false Churches have ties. Mormons (LDS), Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), Jehovah Witness, Anglican, Episcopal, Roman Catholic (RC), Lutheran, Moravian, Pentecostal, Church or Christ, United Church of Christ, Orthodox, and any other of the break offs. You are only really safe to go to Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist (ALL Conservative of course). Also some non denominational churches that follow this doctrine. Christians, don't be deceived!
PreachingJesusToAll 1 year ago
2cat, you're welcome to your opinion on KJS - be wary though of what people in your church tell you of other churches and &qu