Conceptions and Misconceptions

Remove all ads!

Wow, but this thread is really reinforcing my decision to choose Judaism. Thanks, everyone!

 

I can't resist. I'm a glutton for punishment.

Naturally the RC's are wrong here. Anglican orders and sacraments are valid. To think otherwise is a misconception.

Now I'm going to run and hide from my good friend, Chev. I am not so stupid as to think I can out argue him.

 

One man's heresey is another man's truth. Apostolic succession smapostolic succession. If the Church took several wrong turns throughout it's history (something that most protestants would claim) than that would mean that, to a protestant, their apostolic succession is no less broken than that of the Church.

 

Actually, I've heard conflicting reports on Archaeological evidence supporting both Bible and the Book of Mormon.

But has Judaism avoided the complacency that Christianity has been inflicted with as cited in the first article. I think on some level, all religions face the same challenge--apathy. It becomes background, and easily overlooked and written off by the members. When they are apathetic, they don't really care to follow all the observances. Services making you miss the beginning or a football game? They won't miss me one Sunday... You want a CD but can't spare the price of the CD? I can burn it off my buddy who has it, Nobody is getting hurt...

As that lack of observance grows, more viewpoints creep in, some of which even offend those of us who do care enough to observe...

I hold the Priesthood in my church (not an official minister or anything, but a degree of authority to participate in some ordinances), but that does not qualify me to walk into Chev's home parish, or NOG's Congregation or Rally's Synagogue (you get the picture) and start performing ordinances according to their faith. Likewise, a Catholic Priest will not have the authority to administer the Sacrement in my church.

The various religions have their own procedures and beliefs regarding priesthood authority.

One challenge is where these breaks can be claimed. Also, there can be places where succession may be challenged. There is a major offshoot group from my own church that did not recognize Brigham Young as Prophet, but thought that one of Joseph Smith's sons should take over the Church. Both sides challenge the validity of the other based on those grounds.

 

The geographical errors are well known. They occured much, much later as errors in copies mounted due to multiple translations. What makes the similarities between the Geographical errors of the KJV and the Book of Mormon particularly suspicious is the fact that the error is a parroting of an error that was introduced by the KJV. The only ways such a thing could have happened are either an highly, highly improbable (and bizarre) coincidence or (more likely, from a linguistic standpoint) that Joseph Smith had the exact same errors because he was ripping the information from the King James Bible......not from ancient golden tablets written in Heiroglyphics that no one (except three witnesses) has ever seen.

Regarding archaeological evidence.......there is no evidence (and should be) of a people of the size and magnitude described in the Book of Mormon ever having lived in the plains region of North America.

 

Apparently I am the only one who agrees with Martin Luther... salvation doesn't mean going to church, or donating money to them, or even confessing sins to a priest. Salvation is through Faith alone... personally, I am not a religious person, but I believe that if one has faith in a god, then that is enough. You don't need to go to places of worship to be faithful. Your heart tells you that.

 

@Saber:

And what is one's heart telling if one would rather watch TV or do shopping on Sunday than go to church? Hmm? And there's also the fourth commandment.

Salvation is not achieved by faith per se because even Satanists believe in God, whereas Satan himself doesn't even have to believe, having been an angel of God himself. Faith without works is dead and faith neither starts nor can flourish without grace. Therefore works are not irrelevant and grace is the root of it all.

@Nakia:

If you took a validly ordained bishop, like an Old Catholic from Utrecht, a Lefebvrist, an Eastern one or even a Catholic bishop violating the Canon Law, and he used the current Anglican ordination rite, he would ordain a bishop or priest validly. However, the Edwardian rite was invalid because references to sacramental and sacrificing priesthood were removed and the person being ordained was reduced to a preacher only. When references to the Eucharist were put back in, the rite started to be able to produce valid ordination, but the ministers were themselves invalidly ordained. Therefore, whenever an Anglican cleric wishes to convert, his status as a bishop or priest is examined by tracing the apostolic succession and it sometimes turns out that he is indeed a priest, as it was with the former bishop of London who converted to Catholicism. Whereas his episcopal ordination was invalid, it turned out that he was ordained priest by someone who had valid episcopal orders himself. In case of doubt, they receive conditional reordination, which is because a validly ordained man cannot be ordained again; that would be sort of sacrilegious, because once priest always priest (even if he were to become a mullah and have a hundred wives, the priestly character cannot be deleted).

Anglicans shouldn't really complain because this is the treatment they were giving the Methodists.

But this isn't meant to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in the Anglican Church (it would be a heresy to say so) or that Anglican clerics aren't servants of God or that their service is irrelevant, or that there's no spiritual benefit from approaching Anglican sacraments in good faith.

@Drew:

And who are the separating branches to judge the validity of the original Church's teaching and rites? Protestants don't believe their clerics to be sacrificing priests and thus technically it shouldn't matter to a Protestant if we recognise his pastor as a priest or not because the Pastor himself, being true to his Protestant beliefs, would never accept the notion of himself being a sacrificing priest, as a result of Protestant beliefs about the nature of the Eucharist and priesthood.

@Gnarff:

Nicely put. Between the Catholic Church and some other churches, clerical orders and some other sacraments would have to be recognised because of certain theological and liturgical reasons. For example, all Orthodox sacraments apart from remarriage after divorce when the first spouse lives are valid from the point of view of Catholic theology.

 

Actually, catholics re-marry after divorce all the time. They just get an anullment first.....

Good one, Chev. Lets go and compare Lutherans to satanists because, you know, they have so much in common. You also aren't adressing what salvation by faith alone actually means. It doesn't mean you should sit your ass in front of the couch and believing in Jesus Christ will cover your bases. If that were true, why are there Lutheran churches and Priests? Why would they bother to worship at all, since all they need to do is believe in Christ and they are good to go? This is a horrible over-simplification of a complex and rich theology. His message was one of hope-that while none of us is worthy, God will forgive us our sins if we just ask and truly mean it. God would know if we were just going through the motions. It isn't like this belief comes without precedent, either. When dying on the Cross, one of the criminals dying with him said "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom," to which Jesus responded "Amen,I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise". What were the good works this criminal performed in order for Jesus to allow him into paradise?

[ April 22, 2006, 18:01: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Getting an annulment from the Catholic Church is not a simple matter of saying "I want an annulment" and it automatically being given. The marriage must be found to have been invalid. That is; no marriage actually took place. The criteria is quite strict. It can also take years. If anyone knows of a case where someone simply asked and received then something is fishy in Trenton.

 

Thank you Drew, that was a nice explaination of what I meant.

 

Anullments are easy to get if you either find a sympathetic priest (Franciscans, for example, tend to be a bit more understanding about such things) or lie about the reasons for the divorce. Also, many catholics who are divorced will skirt the issue by going outside the church to marry and then go and "confess" their mistake. The church will then bless the union, since the church almost never excommunicates anyone, anymore.

 

@Chev:

Chev, I'm really disapointed in you. Faith THAT God exists is totally different from faith IN God to save you. It is God's mercy that saves us, through our faith in Him to do so. Yes, faith without works is either dead or stunted, but not becuase works make the faith. Rather, it is because the works are a natural product of the faith. Just like an apple tree that doesn't produce apples is either dead or stunted, so it is with faith. The apples do not make the tree an apple tree, but the apple tree WILL make apples.

As for sacraments, the Baptist church, and many protestant churchs are the same, officially recognize only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Baptists also believe that neither of these are neccessary for salvation, but are rather products of salvation. If you die before you get them, God won't damn you for it.

@Saber:
Thank you for bring up Martin Luther. I still respect him as one of the best theologians and Christians ine the past 500 years or so.