NationStates

Farnhamia wrote:

Odins Scandinavia wrote:
die in majestic combat, for the glory of odin; Forn Siðr till i die!

Your choice, though I doubt Odin would mind if you stayed alive.

Ironically Valhalla sounds more my thing. Of course this is coming from a Skyrim obsessed teenager so...

Coltarin wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Your choice, though I doubt Odin would mind if you stayed alive.

Ironically Valhalla sounds more my thing. Of course this is coming from a Skyrim obsessed teenager so...

Yes, so we'll wait until you grow up, shall we?

I was baptised an Anglican, and I'm presently a Catholic.

I think that more or less states how I feel right there.

Folder Land wrote:For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything.

Oooooh, a sedevacantist!

Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

"The Pope" is not infallible. The statements that the Pope makes ex cathedra (i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter, by virtue of apostolic succession), that define that a certain doctrine must be held by the whole church, are. There are about seven of these, and only one since Vatican I.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

I'm unaware of any new-found Calvinist (or any sort of Protestant) direction in the Catholic Church.

Angleter wrote:

Folder Land wrote:For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything.

Oooooh, a sedevacantist!

Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

"The Pope" is not infallible. The statements that the Pope makes ex cathedra (i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter, by virtue of apostolic succession), that define that a certain doctrine must be held by the whole church, are. There are about seven of these, and only one since Vatican I.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

I'm unaware of any new-found Calvinist (or any sort of Protestant) direction in the Catholic Church.

Well, Calvinism and the Reformed Churches in general are highly influenced by the theology of Saint Augustine, who is also one of the Doctors of the Church... So maybe that?

Angleter wrote:The statements that the Pope makes ex cathedra (i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter, by virtue of apostolic succession), that define that a certain doctrine must be held by the whole church, are. There are about seven of these, and only one since Vatican I.

For clarity, the Papacy itself has never made a definitive statement on which pre-Vatican I statements are infallible.

As you know, the only infallible ex cathedra doctrinal statement since Vatican I was Pius XII's definition of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. However, John Paul II's letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on male ordination has been retrospectively declared infallible even though not pronounced ex cathedra on the basis that it falls under a teaching rendered infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In essence, the Catholic Church has thereby given itself the means of retrospectively declaring Papal teachings as infallible even if not pronounced ex cathedra. Which strikes me as just slightly sneaky (not to mention potentially theologically dangerous).

Catholic theologian Klaus Schatz published a list of six earlier 'infallible' statements in 1985 that's achieved wide circulation (see below for the list), but this has never been given official Papal sanction.


Schatz's list:
1) 449 - Leo I's "Tome to Flavian" on the two natures in Christ
2) 680 - Agatho's letter on the two wills of Christ
3) 1336 - Benedict XII on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgement
4) 1653 - Innocent X's condemnation of Jansen
5) 1794 - Pius VI's further condemnation of Jansenist theology
6) 1854 - Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception

The Black Plains wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Not that I've heard.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... qN54e7yRDA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... p3jnVVuz0A

Not recent, but I did remember seeing this.

Yeah, that's just all the sexists moving away because they might have to, at some point, NOT look down on a woman.

Farnhamia wrote:

Coltarin wrote:Ironically Valhalla sounds more my thing. Of course this is coming from a Skyrim obsessed teenager so...

Yes, so we'll wait until you grow up, shall we?

but the food...
any way the Anglican Church just sounds way to liberal to be a serious religion best part is I'm part Irish

Coltarin wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Yes, so we'll wait until you grow up, shall we?

but the food...
any way the Anglican Church just sounds way to liberal to be a serious religion best part is I'm part Irish

Religions have to be severely conservative, as a member of a uniquely American religion put it, in order to be considered "serious"? Then again, as you say, you're Irish.

Coltarin wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Your choice, though I doubt Odin would mind if you stayed alive.

Ironically Valhalla sounds more my thing. Of course this is coming from a Skyrim obsessed teenager so...

The food in Sovngaarde is no better than in any tavern. This disappointed me.

Farnhamia wrote:

Coltarin wrote:but the food...
any way the Anglican Church just sounds way to liberal to be a serious religion best part is I'm part Irish

Religions have to be severely conservative, as a member of a uniquely American religion put it, in order to be considered "serious"? Then again, as you say, you're Irish.

What nonsense to say that a faith that is "liberal" in any way isn't a "serious" religion - who are you to say what is, and what is not?
I'm an Anglican, and it's "serious" enough, thank you very much.

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Religions have to be severely conservative, as a member of a uniquely American religion put it, in order to be considered "serious"? Then again, as you say, you're Irish.

What nonsense to say that a faith that is "liberal" in any way isn't a "serious" religion - who are you to say what is, and what is not?
I'm an Anglican, and it's "serious" enough, thank you very much.

I quite agree.

Lancaster of Wessex wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Religions have to be severely conservative, as a member of a uniquely American religion put it, in order to be considered "serious"? Then again, as you say, you're Irish.

What nonsense to say that a faith that is "liberal" in any way isn't a "serious" religion - who are you to say what is, and what is not?
I'm an Anglican, and it's "serious" enough, thank you very much.

I find it regrettable that modern American political debate has had the pernicious effect in many areas of debate of assuming the default position for any theistic belief system is inherently socially conservative. I concede that several major denominations haven't done themselves much favours here, but the bitterly narrow American Evangelical perspective is nonetheless a fairly small minority one in broad international perspective.

To my mind one of the traditional strengths of the Anglican Communion (a much better term, in international perspective, than 'Anglican Church') has been its willingness to encompass a broad framework of different theological perspectives within a single denomination. To a certain extent, that great strength is also the Anglican Church's greatest weakness. Orthodox theologians have written that 'we'd love to have ecumenical dialogue with the Anglicans if they could only decide what they stand for', and from a less personally biased perspective, those internal doctrinal differences are now in danger of tearing the Anglican Communion apart.

But I would be saddened if those internal disputes did mean the end of the Anglican tradition of internal doctrinal tolerance.

And anyone claiming that Anglicans aren't 'serious' has clearly never read anything by Rowan Williams.

You'll miss him once he's gone, you know.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Angleter wrote:The statements that the Pope makes ex cathedra (i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter, by virtue of apostolic succession), that define that a certain doctrine must be held by the whole church, are. There are about seven of these, and only one since Vatican I.

For clarity, the Papacy itself has never made a definitive statement on which pre-Vatican I statements are infallible.

As you know, the only infallible ex cathedra doctrinal statement since Vatican I was Pius XII's definition of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. However, John Paul II's letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on male ordination has been retrospectively declared infallible even though not pronounced ex cathedra on the basis that it falls under a teaching rendered infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In essence, the Catholic Church has thereby given itself the means of retrospectively declaring Papal teachings as infallible even if not pronounced ex cathedra. Which strikes me as just slightly sneaky (not to mention potentially theologically dangerous).

Catholic theologian Klaus Schatz published a list of six earlier 'infallible' statements in 1985 that's achieved wide circulation (see below for the list), but this has never been given official Papal sanction.


Schatz's list:
1) 449 - Leo I's "Tome to Flavian" on the two natures in Christ
2) 680 - Agatho's letter on the two wills of Christ
3) 1336 - Benedict XII on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgement
4) 1653 - Innocent X's condemnation of Jansen
5) 1794 - Pius VI's further condemnation of Jansenist theology
6) 1854 - Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception

I've never quite got my head round how the Church can declare a statement that was intrinsically not infallible, infallible. I suppose it goes to show that the CDF is not infallible.

Tubbsalot wrote:What's the difference? One of them is in England?

One of them allows you to get your theology degree online, the other is the Roman Catholic Church.

If I, right now, was forced to convert to one of them? I don't know. Perhaps Death, perhaps just getting baptised Catholic and trying to get it off through initiation into a cult.

Anglicans borrowed the wisdom of Bucer and, I think, Melancthon, when setting up their foundational documents. That gives them a distinct edge, in my opinion.

Besides, I just got turned down for an RC organist job because I was not familiar with the responses regularly sung in the ritual. I am irked.

Acadzia wrote:

Yootwopia wrote:Right, right.

I mean, have you ever read Luther's Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate?

Because that basically deals with the whole "why is the Pope?" issue.

Yes, and no it doesn't. It attempts to and fails. For me, anyway.

Any specific passages you have in mind?

Heh, anyways, I'm off... to Mass, ironically.

That isn't ironic...

Anglican. It is slightly saner.

-A man is driving along in Ireland, when he is stopped by a gunman.
The Gunman asks "Are ye a Catholic or a Protestant?".
The man answers "Neither, I am an Atheist Jew."
The Gunman Asks "Are ye a Catholic Atheist Jew or a Protestant Atheist Jew?"-

Anglican, since I'm already baptised and confirmed into it.

Psuedopolis wrote:Anglican. It is slightly saner.

-A man is driving along in Ireland, when he is stopped by a gunman.
The Gunman asks "Are ye a Catholic or a Protestant?".
The man answers "Neither, I am an Atheist Jew."
The Gunman Asks "Are ye a Catholic Atheist Jew or a Protestant Atheist Jew?"-

Which was he? You should really finish your stories you know.

Anglicanism

Anglican. It's brilliant. It's the sort of branch of the Church that will not only allow women bishops, but is also attempting to ensure that people who don't want to serve under women bishops are also allowed to follow their beliefs. It's never going to work, and the Anglican Communion is literally tearing itself apart (who knows what will happen when Williams leaves?) but I reckon it's pretty good nonetheless, and on the right lines. It's a very good attempt at a non-denominational denomination.

I don't know enough about how those two sects differ to make an informed decision, but I'm more confused about the terms of this choice.
Do I have to sincerely believe in the dogma of one of those churches or I will die? I don't think I could do that. I just decide to change my beliefs on a whim. If that's the case, I'd be forced to choose death.
Or is it about living my life as an adherent of one of those faiths even if I don't actually believe in them? If so, how observant do I have to be? How many times can I sleep in on Sundays and skip prayer before I no longer count as being Catholic/Anglican and die?
Or is it more of a wind control situation? If I pick one of the religions, will my brain be rewired so I genuinely have faith in what I picked? I'm really uncomfortable with that prospect, but I'd rather be brainwashed than die.

Of course, if we got a classic Puritan-type in here, we'd all be considered awful.