Episcopal leaders create 'church within a church'

Washington Times ^ | 1/20/04 | Hugh Aynesworth

[kattracks]

PLANO, Texas

[Only1choice____Freedom]

The last time this was done they called it a reformation.

"Here I stand, I can do no other." -Martin Luther (no relation to Marty)

[Clock King]

I never understood why it was so hard for some people to leave a religion you no longer agree with.

[Cronos]

Can we sue them for using the word 'church'?

[A CA Guy]

Martin Luther didn't respect the authority of the Church and refused to practice some of the Sacraments.

He was a HUMANIST that re-created a church in his own image to be exact.
Later a King created another branch of Christian faith when he wanted to live in an adulterous relationship and the Pope refused to grant a divorce.

In this case, it is a better reason to split and reform.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Martin had great respect for the authority of the chruch.

He had little respect for the leaders. (sound familiar?)

He did not want to destroy the church or create a new one, just reform it.

From http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-pope.html

"The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church."

[r9etb]

I never understood why it was so hard for some people to leave a religion you no longer agree with.

The issue is just the opposite: the problem is to reclaim a religion from apostates who seek to destroy it.

[BooBoo1000]

They are operating under the guise of Religion, but the driving force is MONEY.They want to have their cake, and eat it too. If they removed themselves from the Church they would have to give their Church Property, ie Pension Plan back to the National Church. This way they hope to keep their nice cushy little Ivy covered hideout, and practice church as they see it.

[Redbob]

We are not leaving the U.S. Episcopal church; under the direction of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, that church has left us, and left the policies of the Anglican church far behind.

[A CA Guy]

The Pope is the head of the Church here by Christ. Christ made Peter the first Pope and gave him authority, which has been passed down in succession till this very day to JP2.
The authority of the Pope is over the faith and not an earthly kingdom, though at one time governments were closer to theocracies and some Popes did have governmental control of some nature in history.

There has been times where there was one real Pope and couple of false Popes out there who all claimed authority.

Martin did not like the authority of the church, I don't know where you could get that impression since he refused to listen to authority or participate in many Sacraments of the church.
He (if anything) was among the first HUMANISTS!

[A CA Guy]

"He did not want to destroy the church or create a new one, just reform it. ...M. Luther."

Well nobody of that time saw him fit to be a leader worthy of that. He was never elected Pope, so he was a humanist who was out there trying to make a church in his own image.

He did remember to keep Christ in there as his lord and Salvation for his and other's salvation, so that left the church credible and at least pointing in a right direction despite his influence.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

The Pope is the head of the Church here by Christ. Christ made Peter the first Pope and gave him authority, which has been passed down in succession till this very day to JP2.

So, I see you are a Chatholic.

I was commenting on the similarities in Luther's time and ours.

Read the link I put in the other post. It describes Luther's beefs with the Catholic Church of his day. Some still apply. And his scripture still backs him up.

If I felt that my church was in error and the Holy Spirit were not present, I would leave. I have.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

He was never elected Pope, so he was a humanist who was out there trying to make a church in his own image.

Q: If the Pope did the same, would he not be a Humanist? Maybe not in the historical sense of the word but by your defination of term.

[A CA Guy]

The Pope today is the same as Peter who was the first Pope after Christ.
There is nothing similar at all about it.

Martin Luther was not given the "authority" of the church as Christ gave Peter and his successors.

[A CA Guy]

"If I felt that my church was in error and the Holy Spirit were not present, I would leave. I have."

What you stated above is very similar to Luther and would be another great example of humanism.
You are not observing the authority of the church as "YOU" decide errors and what is present in various churches.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

The Pope today is the same as Peter who was the first Pope after Christ.

There is nothing similar at all about it.

huh?

Martin Luther was not given the "authority" of the church as Christ gave Peter and his successors

Actually he was and so has every Disciple. In Mt 18:18 he gave them all authority. In John 20:23 he granted ALL of them authority not just Peter.

Even if that were not true, what you are saying is that Peter's descendants did not choose to directly breathe the spirit to Martin. How do you know for sure? I have read quite a lot about Martin Luther and it sure seems to me he had the Holy Spirit in his life. A lot of miracles happened for God's glory. Were they all counterfeit? I suppose it it possible, but Jesus says in the same way you know a tree by what fruit it bears, so they who profess to be of Christ shall be seen by their deeds.

I suppose then all the evangleists roaming the earth baptising Christians are wasteing their time unless they have the blessing of the Pope? I know that's not the case as I have heard many miricles coming from those areas of the world.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

You are not observing the authority of the church as "YOU" decide errors and what is present in various churches.

I am observing the real authority of the Church, the Holy Spirit. When he is present, it is obvious. Where it is not, is also obvious with those who know him. How do you know him? You have a relationship with him.

When the Pope condones sinful behavior and grants indulgences then he is sinning. All people are guilty of sin but Christ. The Pope is no different. Peter was no different. Paul admitted he was a sinner.

The problem is that God is the authority over the Church. When the two differ, God's Word is the truth. Anything else is sin.

If your Church chooses to accept gay marriage as fact ignoring the teachings of the Bible, how would you justify being a part of it? Also If a Pope blessed Nazi guns, could you stand by him still? If you found out that one or more had killed somebody after achieving the position? Is this man truly infallible? Or just a sinner like the rest of us only with more power?

Personally, I don't see anywhere Jesus requests a stand-in. The Pope to me is just another powerful old man sitting on a throne. I'll never have to answer to him. It will be God I'll have to answer to in my afterlife. The man today in the position of Pope may be a good guy, maybe not, I don't know him and I never will. I do know that Popes in the past have been corrupt just like any other powerful man in a position of almost absolute power. To deny that is to deny his humaness.

The whole reason Jesus came in the first place was to be a bridge between Heavan and Earth. Why is it then that the curtain of the holy of holys was torn? What was he saying? Why tear it just to have a Church bebuild it again? If you don't know what it is like to experience the Holy Spirit in person, then you are missing the whole reason for being in his presence and there must be some other reason for you going to church.

[A CA Guy]

God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are ONE. Think of them like a rose bush and each one of them is a rose on the same rose bush. This is called the Holy Trinity.

Christ established a leadership of His church for man before he died with Peter. That was the stand-in you never read about.

There is the "Word" and "Authority" of the Church. Without the Authority, your dogma gets messed up all over the board with mistakes as you self interpret God you "YOUR" image and through the filters of "YOUR" thinking.

I have no problem with the Episcopal leaders creating the orthodox church from the gay one.

Your words "I DON'T KNOW" pretty much wraps it up for me and I would suggest as you self-teach yourself that you pick up a Catechism to at least get a flavor for what you have been misunderstanding.

[A CA Guy]

You missed the point. Martin Luther was not the Authority of the church. There was an authority above him on earth and he disregarded them and the Sacraments of the Church.

He was in essence a rebel humanist.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

You missed the point. Martin Luther was not the Authority of the church. There was an authority above him on earth and he disregarded them and the Sacraments of the Church.

I understand that. I am saying the Pope is in the same posistion. He is not in authority over The Word.