Archbishop: Women Clergy Need Not Divide Anglicans, Catholics

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Darshan,

All Catholic dogma comes under the inspiration of the Holoy Spirit andis fully in keeping with the teachings of Scripture. They may not be found, word for word, but they have a scriptural basis. There is nothing Christ's Church does that is against Scripture, though some dogma and doctrine might not be found, chapter and verse, the way YOU need it to be. But that doesn't matter because Christ gave the authority to the Church to bind and loose on earth and so it shall be in heaven.
Call it's teachings what you will, restricted by your limited view of Christ's teachings. They extend beyond the NT through the Church He founded on {eter and the Apost;les

Archbishop: Women Clergy Need Not Divide Anglicans, Catholics

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Darshan,
The Catholic Church is not to blame for disunity over women clergy. It is the Anglicans who opted to change tradition and ordain women. It is the Anglicans who left the Mother Church. It is the Anglicans who need to see where they have erected roadblocks to unity. It is not the job of the Catholic Church to retroactively accept the changes adopted by protestants and reformers. The Anglicans who are joining the Catholic Church as Anglicanism liberalizes understand this. That is why they have accepted the Anglican Constitution that lays out the guidelines for re-entry into communion iwth Rome.

Children Should Make Up Own Mind About Faith, Evangelicals Say

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Parents will always influence their childrens' beliefs. To think otherwise is to deny reality. We can only hope that they rear their children in a way that is pleasing to God. Some parents will pass on their bigotry, wrongheaded assumptions and perceptions in attempting to teach their children about God and faith.

My granddaughter came to me one visit and said mommy told her I didn't know Jesus. This is a 5 year old with evangelical parents who belong to some unaffiliated fellowship church. Why would you smear your child's grandfather like that? They've impressed on her how important knowing Jesus is, then tell her that I don't know Him. Why? Because I'm Catholic.

Luckily, I always wear my crucifix, so I showed it to her and her face lit up and she went running into the next room yelling, "Mommy, mommy, Pop Pop does know Jesus!" I'll bet mommy felt about 2 foot tall knowing her manipulative misinformation campaign was out in the open. Children will sort out religious differences later in life and make their own judgments. They should be taught about God and faith, not bigotry and intolerance toward others who are different..

So we have to be careful what we teach, what we say and how we treat others. None of those lessons are not lost on our children. Let's teach them diligently and train them up the way they should go, not forgetting tolerance, love and understanding. My grandchild's teacher could heed those words instead of her own prejudices.

Ministry Distributes 'Origin of Species' with Intelligent Design Intro

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 4

Despite Confort's paranoia, there is no serious effort to keep ID out of schools. per se. The effort centers around keeping it out of science curriculums where it clearly has no place.

I don't think most would object to ID in philosophy class, under comparative religions or in sociology as a cultural phenomenon to be explored. The issue is context, not content. The battle is over what is science and what is something else, pretending to be science.

Pastors Test Expanded Hate Crimes Law

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:10 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

Jehovahnissi,

I'm sorry, but I think there are millions of Americans who like the nation to be led by the secular institutions our founding fathers created to give us all democratic representative3 government. Regardless of the importance of Scripture, it is not well suited to governance. We need to absorb the moral/ethical lessons therein and apply them to our practice of governing. That is something that everyone can respect. Those of different faiths can share the same moral lessons of the Bible because they are somewhat universal. To use the book itself is a bit problematic, though. Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, aethiests and others would feel like foreigners if the holy book of another religion was used in governing them. Even other Christians could object - you see the disagreements over interpretation here all the time.

I have no qualms with incorporating Christian morality into our governance, but I'd have to balk at disaffecting millions of my fellow countrymen by sanctioning a particular state approved religion. We can use our faith to try to influence our government and what it does as our representative through the election process or lobbying our legislators. That's how America works. We have the power to change who we send to Congress and the White House. If we're making bad choices, that's our fault.

Darwin Was Wrong, Scientists Argue

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:27 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Obviously, this group had a preset agenda, used scientists who confuse Bible stories with evidence and came to the predermined conclusions one would expect from such a bunch.

Only those predisposed to accepting any explanation that claims to refute evolutuiion woul dbuy this bill of goods. We know Darwin was not correct on all fronts, but hte basic theory is sound, despite the proclamation of scientists who have abandoned scientific methods for chapter and verse.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"Find the verse in the Bible where might is right. That numbers of adherents indicaes the true Gospel...where is it?"

See what I mean about that knee jerk question? How can a situation that exists in the 21st century be found in the Bible? And the might makes right is your phrase, not mine. I'd like to look at "and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" in reference to the age old history and continuing growth of the Catholic Church. Now that's in the Bible.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Online,

Sacred Tradition began the moment the Apostles began teaching after the death of Christ. Their teachings were spread orally and passed on that way before the NT was finally made canonical in the 4th century. Sacred Tradition predates Sacred Scripture and holds a position of equal footing with the Word. Neither one nor the other is complete alone because neither holds the entirety of God's revelation. They are like a pair of gloves. You can get by with one, but you're really meant to have both for the best effect.

So it isn't either Tradition or Scripture. There are too many overlapping areas of faith to leave either one out of the picture and think you have the whole picture. Neither stands on it's won, nor was it meant to.

And you're right, numbers don't mean everything, but when you've had 2000 years to build your base, it shows in the numbers. Of course, not having any competition for 1500 years does tilt the scale a bit, but that's life.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Delight,

You might want to talk to the Anglicans and Orthodox who are in the process of entering into full communion with the Catholic Church as well. Million of them. They'd be annoyed at being excluded from your list of Christians.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Then that would mean Catholicism has lost the Christian audience."

Except for the 1.3 billion Christians of the Catholic Church. Oops..

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Ok, let me try to explain this one more time. This is not an either or situation, Tradition or Biblical. Take Baptism. It is clearly Biblical, taught by Christ and the Apostles and their successors.

Infant baptism. Not explicitly stated in the Bible, not mentioned at all really, but the Church took the concept of Baptism and extended it to infants. Still the same Sacrament, still biblical, but different than the adult Baptism that we read about in Scripture.

Pro-Lifers Fear Stupak Amendment Won't Hold

Cheisa »

Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:04 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

While people like to portray the Democrats as liberal, the Republican National Committee has health coverage for their employees that has included abortion coverage since 1991.

I think an honest liberal has more moral fiber than a hypocritical "conservative."

Judge Strikes Down Christian License Plate

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:49 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

It's hard to agree that things on this site are meant to be discussed from a "Christian perspective" when those who participate in these forums sometimes can't agree of what, exactly, that is. Some protestant denominations are ordaining gay clergy. Protestants and Catholics don't agree on many theological issues, born agains don't agree with protestants or Catholics. sometimes and so on and so on. Defining Christianity beyond the basic, "I believe in Jesus Christ" is impossible here, much less defining what "the" Christian perspective is.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Online,

I don't believe God appreciaites anything that is not done in Spirit and Truth, including, but not limited to worship.

The Bible tells us to be baptized, to receive the Eucharist and that the Apostles were to teach and those teachers were to teach in succession. Oral tradition. The way the Word was spread and the Church was built in the beginning.

Tradition doesn't have to have 100% Biblical support, only a suggestion or concept of it is needed. The Church is empowered by Christ to take it from there, so quoting verses wouldn't be satisfactory, anyway. Take the Rapture. Unbiblical? The word "rapture" does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of it does. Tradition aften falls into that same area of lacking exact phrasing, but having a supportive concept.

In the end we're not going to convince each other of the validity of too many contested items of faith because we come from two different places. I've lost my audience as soon as I say that it doesn't have to say it in the Bible.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Delight,

Having only the Bible to guide you lets me forget about the awful misinterpretations you make about Scripture and the practices of the Church. Too many mistakes to mention, but here's a couple of corrections.

"It's the inner communion with God that is important. If you're worship gets you there, that's all that counts."
If you truly believe this, then why isn't it enough to have His indwelling power alone working in and through us?"

I can have that indwelling power and receive the grace of the Eucharist and communal prayer and worship as well. I can have the human connection with the Body of Christ by contiunuing the prayers and rites that they established centuries ago. I can have that sense of belonging, not only to God, but to also my Christian predecessors. As history connects us with people and events of our past, I am connected to religious people and events of the Church's past. That connectivity strengthens my faith and, as such, is a good thing. It doesn't replace God dwelling within me, but gives me a sense that those Christians who came before me felt that same joy and they spoke the same words and acted out the same rites that I do. It tells me, very concretely, that I am truly connected to God and the entire Body of Christ since He sent His Son to save us. The desire to know your past is a very human trait and that past didn't end with the last Gospel.

Priests do not have the power to do anything. That power comes from God and priests know this. That is not arrogance on their part because they know are tools of God, not a source of Godly power themselves.

Again, Jesus said, "is" when he held up the bread and "is" when He held up the wine at the :Last Supper. That's enough Biblical support for me.

Judge Strikes Down Christian License Plate

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:00 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

No one on either side of any issue should be flagged simply for expressing an opinion, regardless of what anyone thinks of that opinion. Forums are for discussion and debate and only truly inappropriate, out of line behavior should be flagged. Disagreeing with someone is not inappropriate or out of line behavior in a public forum.

And I kind of have to agree with garageguy about CP's subject matter. When you publish so many stories on gay issues, you have to expect some input or dissent from those on the other side of those issues, as well as more agreeable opinions. Everyone has freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

No genius in making a potpourri of various religious practices but I'd be very interested in how Hunter "tries to explain" the damnable doctrine of the "Eucharist" to the "de-churched". From "genius" to the realm of magician, abracadabra, bread into the actual flesh of Christ; there is simply no explanation for that. Nor reason, as Christ died once for all and the LORD'S supper is done in * remembrance *, not in a magical act of substituting His Body for earthly bread, as in a re-sacrifice.( Men cannot conjure and manipulate God in this way.)

Delight,

Again, you're confusing what is man made with what comes from God. Christ is the One who told us, "This is My Body, do this in memory of Me." Man didn't create those words, Christ did. The Church is following through on His command. We do it in remembrance and we don't argue with Jesus that this is, indeed, His Body and Blood. Jesus didn't use "like", "as" or "represents." Jesus said, "is."

And you might think belief in the real presence is magic, but we prefer to think of it as a miracle and a mystery that only God, not man, can explain. But that's the basis of faith, accepting the unprovable that is achieved through the power of Almighty God.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

"The true worship of God is declared to be “they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”"

Online, I wonder why people think that because formal prayer and rites are a part of worship that, somehow, dilutes its sincerity or makes it an invalid form of worship. Many find that these outward signs of worship actually bring them closer to God and make worship more fulfilling. That formal worship isn't found in the NT is not surprising, but it's neither here nor there. The NT addresses the roots of worship and so long as the purpose and meaning of worship is compatible with those teachings, it isn't a matter of great importance what exact outward forms worship takes. It's the inner communion with God that is important. If you're worship gets you there, that's all that counts.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Delight,

You confuse real prayer with "vain repetitions." And, actually, Mark was addressing the practices of the Jewish religion, not Christianity.

And Tradition is not man made. The NT is [part of Tradition since it existed as oral teaching, passed down from Christ to the Apostles, then to their successors before it was written down. And even after the texts appeared, they had to be sorted by the Church as to which were inspired by the Holy Spirit. After that determination was made, the Canon was, finally, established. The NT did not exist as a codified work until the 4th century. Tradition is the mechanism by which the Word was spread and taught prior to the establishment of the NT.
Tradition also encompasses the practices and beliefs of the early Church, of the first Christians. Many come directly from the Apostles, others from their disciples. This knowledge of the early Church is what validates many of our practices and beliefs today and Tradition is what makes this knowledge possible. Before you use man made as a slander, remember that Christ entrusted His Church to men, to the Apostles to teach all nations. Christ knew that these men would be guided by the Holy Spirit so His Church would endure and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Man made is not a slander. Even the NT is man made if you don't consider that the men who assembled it were guided by the Holy Spirit acting within them. Tradition is no different.

Christians Rediscover Liturgies for Evangelism

Cheisa »

Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:28 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Online,
The earliest Traditions are not debatable when the Apostles and and belief.1st and 2nd century writers speak of them as common beliefs and practices of the Christian community of the day. They were obviously part of the accepted core of Christian teaching and belief. It is only much later - read, reformation- that people began opening these beliefs up for debate, reinterpreting Scripture and the meaning of these age old practices based on Christian teaching.

People debate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist when that was, clearly, accepted as true from the first days and corroborated through the first centuries by one writer after another. Only much later did the debate begin over "This is My Body.." not meaning, "this is My Body", but something else.

You are right in that some Church Traditions were established later, but the core has been present from the start