Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is so difficult to image you as a Christian that I am repulsed by reading your comments. Can you ever understand how harmful to you are to the Christian faith? Enough to make me want to not ever read your comments or stay away from CD altogether. Is that what you desire?
What is harmful is lacking conviction and giving nebulous wishy-washy answers to questions that deserve to be answered concisely and accurately to avoid confusion.
Are you Catholic? Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church created by Jesus Christ? If you answered yes to both of those, then all others 35,000+ flavors of Christians are deficient. Some more, some less. It's irrelevant how much. If they are deficient at all, they are inferior to the Catholic Church. Competive maybe, but logic and facts are what they are. It's time all Catholics are true defenders of the faith and quit being limp noodles. Why do you choose to confuse people? There is only one choice.
Damn, juj; you are really insulting. And I am a Catholic. I have never read such hateful comments toward other Christians. And you do not represent the Catholic church at all. Frankly you embarrass Catholics. Please stop stating things like they are somehow official Catholic positions because they are not. Wow, you really need to cool it with all the superiority stuff since it is so uncalled for.
Now that I see this I'm going to have to say that although Juj put it too starkly what he says isn't precisely wrong. It is a bit too simplified though.
The Church of England did originally separate because Henry VIII had come to believe his marriage was invalid. There is reason to believe he was actually sincere in this and that he believed God was truly punishing him for marrying his brother's widow. (Catherine of Aragon was first married to Henry's brother Arthur) However he was also still a virile young man so wanted to get with Anne Boleyn.
Still to say "that's all you need to know" is a bit unfair. Although its origins, in my mind, make it somewhat illegitimate this does not mean it has no value or can be defined solely by its origins. The Anglican Church has at times been a thoughtful attempt to be a "Middle Way" between Catholicism and Protestantism. Although a compromise church, it's definitely had people of true Christian virtue who were not "compromised." As an apostate and critic of Catholicism I maybe shouldn't like him, but John Donne did have some good qualities. William Wilberforce I thought was Protestant, but I guess he was an Evangelical Anglican and he did admirable work ending the slave trade.
Still I do agree that if one really believes in Catholicism, and doesn't merely believe in being Catholic out of sense of community, other denominations are deficient. Still s/he might be putting "deficient" in too stark a terms. Getting a 99% on a test is "deficient", it's not the same as worthless as I fear s/he could seem to be implying. That said I guess I do sympathize with his/her view a bit.
My own views of Anglicanism aside it sounds like the OP might prefer an Anglican form of monasticism, but is concerned about their social liberalism. I think there are conservative splinter groups of Anglicans who may have monasteries. In general the following places look to have Anglican monasteries of some kind.
Washington, DC (Benedictine Companions of St. Paul~OSB). A mixed sex monastery founded in 2010 and attached to St. Paul's Parish
Donnellson, Iowa (Abbey of Saint Benedict of Companions of Saint Luke~OSB).
Natchez, Mississippi (St. Joseph's Monastery. An Anglo-Catholic monastery founded in 2001.
Phoenix, Arizona (Servants of Christ Priory). A priory of monks founded in 1968.
Damn, juj; you are really insulting. And I am a Catholic. I have never read such hateful comments toward other Christians. And you do not represent the Catholic church at all. Frankly you embarrass Catholics. Please stop stating things like they are somehow official Catholic positions because they are not. Wow, you really need to cool it with all the superiority stuff since it is so uncalled for.
It's pretty clear that Californo Sur is unhappy with my comments so I invite all Catholics, including you CS to read this thread, which is not very long, and provide me with cogent arguments that prove I have said anything false to the teaching of the Catholic Church or have said something that misrepresents the Catholic faith.
And please, don't give me, well you're not exactly right or that's not the whole picture or any other wishy-washy comment or personal opinion. Please state which comment I have made which is false for specific reasons and provide with me with Catholic sources such as the Catechism or any other credible source.
Now that I see this I'm going to have to say that although Juj put it too starkly what he says isn't precisely wrong. It is a bit too simplified though.
The Church of England did originally separate because Henry VIII had come to believe his marriage was invalid. There is reason to believe he was actually sincere in this and that he believed God was truly punishing him for marrying his brother's widow. (Catherine of Aragon was first married to Henry's brother Arthur) However he was also still a virile young man so wanted to get with Anne Boleyn.
Still to say "that's all you need to know" is a bit unfair. Although its origins, in my mind, make it somewhat illegitimate this does not mean it has no value or can be defined solely by its origins. The Anglican Church has at times been a thoughtful attempt to be a "Middle Way" between Catholicism and Protestantism. Although a compromise church, it's definitely had people of true Christian virtue who were not "compromised." As an apostate and critic of Catholicism I maybe shouldn't like him, but John Donne did have some good qualities. William Wilberforce I thought was Protestant, but I guess he was an Evangelical Anglican and he did admirable work ending the slave trade.
Still I do agree that if one really believes in Catholicism, and doesn't merely believe in being Catholic out of sense of community, other denominations are deficient. Still s/he might be putting "deficient" in too stark a terms. Getting a 99% on a test is "deficient", it's not the same as worthless as I fear s/he could seem to be implying. That said I guess I do sympathize with his/her view a bit.
My own views of Anglicanism aside it sounds like the OP might prefer an Anglican form of monasticism, but is concerned about their social liberalism. I think there are conservative splinter groups of Anglicans who may have monasteries. In general the following places look to have Anglican monasteries of some kind.
Washington, DC (Benedictine Companions of St. Paul~OSB). A mixed sex monastery founded in 2010 and attached to St. Paul's Parish
Donnellson, Iowa (Abbey of Saint Benedict of Companions of Saint Luke~OSB).
Natchez, Mississippi (St. Joseph's Monastery. An Anglo-Catholic monastery founded in 2001.
Phoenix, Arizona (Servants of Christ Priory). A priory of monks founded in 1968.
I see that you ultimately agree with me. But I don't understand why you think I over simplify. I submit to you, that most people overly complicate things and just muck things up and don't break them down to their root parts. The creation of the Anglican Church is vitally important and should be a deal breaker for all Christians including Anglicans. And yet there are still Anglicans. Maybe because King Henry VIII made it hard to be a Catholic in England and being Anglican was all you could be unless you wanted to worship in hiding.
[LEFT][SIZE=3]While no one can ever deny that there are important differences between religious traditions, these differences should be accepted with humility and respect, in mutual tolerance. The practice of any faith must be conducted with respect for other religious traditions because everyone hopes to be respected for what he or she is, and for what he or she conscientiously believes. Religious tolerance is based on the conviction that God wishes to be adored by people who are free. This is a conviction which requires us to respect and honor that inner sanctuary called the conscience, wherein each person meets God. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]OP--Are you being called? I am not sure you are. Probably all orders will help you with the discernment process. I suggest that you actually visit some monastaries. [/SIZE][/LEFT]
[LEFT][SIZE=3]While no one can ever deny that there are important differences between religious traditions, these differences should be accepted with humility and respect, in mutual tolerance. The practice of any faith must be conducted with respect for other religious traditions because everyone hopes to be respected for what he or she is, and for what he or she conscientiously believes. Religious tolerance is based on the conviction that God wishes to be adored by people who are free. This is a conviction which requires us to respect and honor that inner sanctuary called the conscience, wherein each person meets God. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]OP--Are you being called? I am not sure you are. Probably all orders will help you with the discernment process. I suggest that you actually visit some monastaries. [/SIZE][/LEFT]
I accept the differences. One of the Popes missions is Ecumenism which requires him to be diplomatic. I don't quite have to sugar coat everything I say like he does. But I still don't feel like I said anything inappropriate. I just made a basic comparison of the two churches origins. A factual, albeit simple, description of a churches origin should not offend and if it does, then one might consider a new faith.
Jesus created the Catholic Church to spread His good news to the corners of the world. King Henry VIII created the Anglican church so he could get a divorce. Is there anything else you must know?
-- sorry, I don't do many quick, one-liners and do not intend to be confrontational, but that is a new one to me. Who in the world told you that Jesus created the Catholic church?? Do you have some type of Bible reference? ... or are you perhaps thinking about one of the creeds which states, "I believe in the Holy catholic church" ... which is referring to Christ's church on earth, united ... NOT the Catholic denomination.
-- sorry, I don't do many quick, one-liners and do not intend to be confrontational, but that is a new one to me. Who in the world told you that Jesus created the Catholic church?? Do you have some type of Bible reference? ... or are you perhaps thinking about one of the creeds which states, "I believe in the Holy catholic church" ... which is referring to Christ's church on earth, united ... NOT the Catholic denomination.
Matthew 16:13-19. Just keep in mind that Jesus did NOT leave us a bible. He left us a living Church, the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church which left Christianity with the Bible.
Christ creates His Church and makes Peter it's head. Peter is our first pope. Yes, in the creed it states one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic church. What church do you think they were talking about? There was only one church at the time based in Rome and that church still exists today. It's the Catholic Church known also in the English speaking countries as the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a denomination or division since it is the original Christian Church that Jesus created and that all other churches including orthodox and protestant churches broke off of. Well, truth be told only a handful of protestant churches broke off of the Catholic Church and the rest of the 35,000+ protestant churches broke off of all the other protestant churches.
Jesus created the Catholic Church to spread His good news to the corners of the world. King Henry VIII created the Anglican church so he could get a divorce. Is there anything else you must know?
Ummmm, your statement is technically true but historically rather dishonest. The Papacy had granted royal divorces prior to Henry when the marriage could not produce a child. The reason for this was rather plain, namely that royalty without a clearcut line of succession paved the way for civil war once the monarch died. Henry, whose country had recently fought a disastrous war of succession between the Lancasters and the Yorks, really didn't want to put his country through a repeat of the War of the Roses. Playing by the Church's own rules and following its precedents, Henry petitioned for a divorce. The Pope, wanting a strong military alliance between England and the Hapsburgs against the French, refused.
So the corrupt party in this situation was the Church and its addiction to secular power, not Henry.
Last edited by cpg35223; 11-30-2010 at 04:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
