Am I catholic or episcopalian?

[Lucy27]

I agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition. I like Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
I agree with Episcopalian Church on priest women, queer theology, feminism, ecclesial democracy, gay marriage, contraception, premarital sex and LGBT parenting (no surrogacy). I like queer theologians.

 

[Rival]

You seem too liberal compared to what the scriptures say. You will have trouble reconciling your social liberal views with the views of the scriptures. I would say you are a liberal Anglican.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition. I like Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
I agree with Episcopalian Church on priest women, queer theology, feminism, ecclesial democracy, gay marriage, contraception, premarital sex and LGBT parenting (no surrogacy). I like queer theologians.

If you recognize the authority of the Roman Church as you state, your a believer, therefore your personal views should not influence your actions. As far as the statement above goes you are a believer in the Roman Church.

I was raised in the Roman Church, and no longer recognize the claims of the church nor consider it 'Catholic.'

The problem with the diversity of the Protestant churches is they are churches of variable 'personal preferences,' where believers shop around for the shoes that fit their personal views comfortably. In south where I live is called 'church shopping.'

 

[Lucy27]

You seem too liberal compared to what the scriptures say. You will have trouble reconciling your social liberal views with the views of the scriptures. I would say you are a liberal Anglican.

It's not true.

 

[pearl]

agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition. I like Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
I agree with Episcopalian Church on priest women, queer theology, feminism, ecclesial democracy, gay marriage, contraception, premarital sex and LGBT parenting (no surrogacy). I like queer theologians.

I think your belief in papal infallibility along with your belief in the ordination of women, gay marriage etc. has made the choice for you, Episcopalian. Maybe if you believed in the infallibility of the Church, not the pope. We don't believe in the Church, but believe what the Church states, we believe in Christ.
I have not followed Schillebeeckx, but Rahner is one of my favorite theologians.

 

[Lucy27]

I think your belief in papal infallibility along with your belief in the ordination of women, gay marriage etc. has made the choice for you, Episcopalian. Maybe if you believed in the infallibility of the Church, not the pope. We don't believe in the Church, but believe what the Church states, we believe in Christ.
I have not followed Schillebeeckx, but Rahner is one of my favorite theologians.

Rahner agreed with the female priesthood (See Strukturwandel der Kirche als Aufgabe und Chance).
I believe that the bishop of Rome can infallibly define some truths of faith with the consent of the Church.

 

[metis]

I agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition. I like Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
I agree with Episcopalian Church on priest women, queer theology, feminism, ecclesial democracy, gay marriage, contraception, premarital sex and LGBT parenting (no surrogacy). I like queer theologians.

The two parts that I underlined above make you a Catholic.

Do not feel an obligation to agree with all dogma as the RCC has the responsibility to teach what it thinks is right, but you have the responsibility as a Catholic to try your best to understand those teachings but then make up your own mind. The church is like a Roman traffic cop giving you directions but your the driver of your own car and has the ultimate responsibility for what you believe and do.

 

[DavidFirth]

I agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition. I like Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
I agree with Episcopalian Church on priest women, queer theology, feminism, ecclesial democracy, gay marriage, contraception, premarital sex and LGBT parenting (no surrogacy). I like queer theologians.

What's queer theology?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You are a Catholic with heretical beliefs.
The deposit of faith, limits the church thinking and progress on thse matters.
Many af your views are similar tto the high Anglican church, but they like the Catholiic church is far from liberal on sexual issuues.
Liberal Anglicans and Episcopalians do not put many limits on faith matters, but the American Episcopalians have move even further than most of the Anglican church on sexual freedoms.

 

[metis]

You are a Catholic with heretical beliefs.

That really would only be an issue if he tried to teach this as part of Catholic theology.

 

[metis]

I was raised in the Roman Church, and no longer recognize the claims of the church nor consider it 'Catholic.'

Not to debate this as we've discussed this before, but are you saying all "the claims of the church"? IOW, I'm sorta confused by what appears to be such a blanket statement. Clarification, please?

 

[Lucy27]

Who are the liberal Catholics?

 

[shunyadragon]

Not to debate this as we've discussed this before, but are you saying all "the claims of the church"? IOW, I'm sorta confused by what appears to be such a blanket statement. Clarification, please?

I agree with Catholich Church on sacramentalism, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, existence of purgatory, prayers to the saints, Marian devotion, monasticism, mysticism, papal primacy, condemnation of abortion, beauty of tomism and importance of Tradition.

In acknowledging the Papal authority, she acknowledges the following also.

These are claims of the Roman Church. Beyond the the Roman Church claims to be 'Catholic,' and the One and Only True Church.

[cite=[URL='http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/vatican-says-the-catholic-church-is-the-only-true-church/']Vatican Says The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church • Now The End Begins[/URL]]
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians.

It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

Formulated as five questions and answers, the document is titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”

It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

“It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation,” it said. [/cite]

By the way it is tradition that all Popes reassert this in an encyclical at some time after they become Pope.

It is also believed:
The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

 

[metis]

In acknowledging the Papal authority, she acknowledges the following also.

These are claims of the Roman Church. Beyond the the Roman Church claims to be 'Catholic,' and the One and Only True Church.

[cite=[URL='http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/vatican-says-the-catholic-church-is-the-only-true-church/']Vatican Says The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church • Now The End Begins[/URL]]
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians.

It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

Formulated as five questions and answers, the document is titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”

It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

“It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation,” it said. [/cite]

By the way it is tradition that all Popes reassert this in an encyclical at some time after they become Pope.

It is also believed:
The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation". The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."

Thanks for the clarification, but what threw me a bit is when you posted "... and no longer recognize the claims of the church", which I would think also would include claims about what they believe about Jesus and his teachings. However, I was pretty sure that you were only speaking of its position on primacy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not to debate this as we've discussed this before, but are you saying all "the claims of the church"? IOW, I'm sorta confused by what appears to be such a blanket statement. Clarification, please?

Thanks for the clarification, but what threw me a bit is when you posted "... and no longer recognize the claims of the church", which I would think also would include claims about what they believe about Jesus and his teachings. However, I was pretty sure that you were only speaking of its position on primacy.

If I was misunderstood I apologize. It is I who no longer recognize the claims of the Roman Church, therefore I do not consider the Roman Church 'Catholic.' The Roman Church is simply the church headed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Once one commits to the tenants of a belief system their personal beliefs that conflict take the back seat. It does not mean that one cannot personally disagree,but vain hopes of reform and change are naive delusions of illusion.

 

[metis]

If I was misunderstood I apologize.

No, it is I who was being anal and taking your point as possibly being word-for-word correct versus seeing it as you undoubtedly meant it.

Once one commits to the tenants of a belief system their personal beliefs that conflict take the back seat.

I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, namely that the church has its teachings, but it is also part of Catholic teaching that it is up to the individual as to what they end up doing with it, much like driving in Rome (ever been there? if so, then you know what I mean). An excellent book that covers that is "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide".

BTW, the Roman traffic cop analogy I use I took from a friend of mine who's a Catholic priest and former monk from Belfast, NI, so it is he I have to give credit to, for better or worse. Oh, and another priest that I know fairly well is gay, but as long as he doesn't talk about it, ...

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it is I who was being anal and taking your point as possibly being word-for-word correct versus seeing it as you undoubtedly meant it.

OK

I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again, namely that the church has its teachings, but it is also part of Catholic teaching that it is up to the individual as to what they end up doing with it, much like driving in Rome (ever been there? if so, then you know what I mean). An excellent book that covers that is "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide".

Like any religion or belief system the Roman Church is its teachings and claims, which are taught and believed universally to the believers and children of the world via the Catechism, which is clear and specific.

I am not a fan of intellectually justifying individual beliefs in a belief system to suit owns independent world view when that of the Roman Church teachings are out of touch with reality.

BTW, the Roman traffic cop analogy I use I took from a friend of mine who's a Catholic priest and former monk from Belfast, NI, so it is he I have to give credit to, for better or worse.

I consider this hypocritical, Personal opinions that are contrary to church teachings are not the problem, but the active promoting these beliefs in the church, and belief in reform of the church naive.

Oh, and another priest that I know fairly well is gay, but as long as he doesn't talk about it, ...

As far as the Roman Church is concerned it is not a problem of being Gay, but it is a problem of being sexually active regardless of whether your a priest or not. Of course, it is a much greater problem for the priest, because of their position of authority and responsibility with the believers. The problem in the past and likely present is priests acting on sexual impulses and they are covered up and the church was silent.

 

[metis]

OK



Like any religion or belief system the Roman Church is its teachings and claims, which are taught and believed universally to the believers and children of the world via the Catechism, which is clear and specific.

I am not a fan of intellectually justifying individual beliefs in a belief system to suit owns independent world view when that of the Roman Church teachings are out of touch with reality.



I consider this hypocritical, Personal opinions that are contrary to church teachings are not the problem, but the active promoting these beliefs in the church, and belief in reform of the church naive.



As far as the Roman Church is concerned it is not a problem of being Gay, but it is a problem of being sexually active regardless of whether your a priest or not. Of course, it is a much greater problem for priest, because of their position of authority and responsibility with the believers. The problem in the past is priests acting on sexual impulses and they are covered up and the church was silent.

Well, since it appears that I supposedly have to believe you versus believe what I've studied, learned from teachers within the church, and what I also taught in the church decades ago before leaving it, I'm going with the latter. It seems like you've got too big an ax to grind, and we've hit this impasse before, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, when was the last time you heard of anyone in today's RCC of being excommunicated for having false beliefs and/or not observing each and every church teaching? Hell's bells, even priests and nuns don't always agree with some of the teachings, and yet you seem to think that they all must follow around like a reenactment of the "Stepford Wives". You don't think that the church teaches that people must not follow their own (informed) conscience?


ADDED: Here: "Every human being has a conscience, an inner guide to determining right from wrong. About this faculty, the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Church had this to say:"In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can, when necessary, speak to his heart more specifically: do this, shun that. For man in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged." -- What is the Catholic Church's Teaching on Conscience? - Diocese of Lake Charles

However, the article does go on to qualify some of this because just doing anything one wants and saying "it's my conscience" can lead to quite a number of moral problems.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, since it appears that I supposedly have to believe you versus believe what I've studied, learned from teachers within the church, and what I also taught in the church decades ago before leaving it, I'm going with the latter. It seems like you've got too big an ax to grind, and we've hit this impasse before, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, when was the last time you heard of anyone in today's RCC of being excommunicated for having false beliefs and/or not observing each and every church teaching? Hell's bells, even priests and nuns don't always agree with some of the teachings, and yet you seem to think that they all must follow around like a reenactment of the "Stepford Wives". You don't think that the church teaches that people must not follow their own (informed) conscience?

I believe you have failed to respond to my post.

No, I never proposed that anyone 'being excommunicated for having false beliefs and/or not observing each and every church teaching? I already stated that a person having differing opinions with church teachings IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Believers have been excommunicated is for heretical teaching beliefs that which is contrary to the doctrines and dogmas, and catechism of the Roman Church. Excommunication is rare, and reversible with those that repent. There are other measures of censure that the church uses.

For example: There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the church concerning the celibacy of the priesthood, but one who actually marries or becomes sexually involved while a priest. gay or straight, would be expelled from the priesthood, unless a period of absolution and repentance is carried out, and censured if one actively taught marriage of priests, and of course, promoted sexual involvement of priests gay or straight.

 

[metis]

Believers have been excommunicated for teaching contrary to the doctrines and dogmas, and catechism of the Roman Church.

Which I already alluded to in a previous post.

BTW, they usually are not excommunicated but go through steps, such as a reprimand, being moved to a different position, or being defrocked-- but only rarely ever excommunicated.