Jewish Rabbi's
or Islamic Clerics. 
If not, why not?
And why are the Homosexual's only
effecting the Christian Chruch.
Hey, I don't know, just asking a question.
Posted on 10/08/2004 7:32:30 AM PDT by JesseHousman
Good point.
In this context "Catholic" means universal; it is not referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Christian denominations do not accept the "baptism" performed in the RCC, Anglican or other "mainstream" denominations. Not to get into a theological argument over who is right, the root word for baptism means "to immerse", so these denominations (Baptists, Penecostals, etc.) beleive that you must be completely immersed when baptized. This may be supported by Jesus going "down into the water" when he was baptized by John.
The true Church makes sense to me. 8-)
Check out Faith of the Early Fathers to see what doctrines the earliest Christians believed.
Bing and Go!
You don't have to agree with what the Bible says about Homosexuality, or even that the Bible is G-d's written Word. But if you don't then go be a Unitarian Universalist or some religion that doesn't claim to hold to the Bible.
According to the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal Church is founded on the teachings of Scripture. Gays who want to be Priests should not be applying for Ordination in the Episcopal Church. If the Episcopal Church doesn't want to hold to the teaching of Scripture, it is no longer the Episcopal Church.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people.
Shalom.
or Islamic Clerics.
If not, why not?
And why are the Homosexual's only
effecting the Christian Chruch.
Hey, I don't know, just asking a question.
Actually, if you look at what most Protestant churchs say in their creed you will find that the reference to "one holy catholic and apostolic church" does not capitalize the word catholic as you have in your post. The word "catholic" has a very different meaning from your Catholic church. The reference in most Protestant churches to a catholic church (lower-case "c") pertains to a universal church (look up the word catholic in Webster's... Roman Catholics don't possess a monopoly on the word). It is not a reference to conventional Catholicism as you implied. This reference to a catholic church (i.e. a universal Christian church) is the very reason why most Protestant churches recognise Catholic baptismal and marriage rites. You've fallen into a common misconception regarding Protestant Christianity.
We (and I'm just speaking for Protestants and Evangelicals in general, not the Anglicans in particular) appreciate that offer, but unfortunately there are some very fundamental issues that divide us that we regard as every bit as important as the creeping inroads the homosexual movement has made into many denominations.
Given that large denominations (including the RCC) are being taken over by modernism, Nicolaitanism, Laodiceanism, and heresy, I think those truly in Christ are better off being "universal" in a Spirit of love with one another than being under one "universal" heirarchy.
How is Catholic doctrine on "the reading of the Bible" different from the Episcopal?I really don't know what to do here. My husband disagrees with me on this. I do not want to join a different church from him.
I'm a bit confused. Did your husband apostatize from Catholicism and join the Episcopals?
And now that the Episcopals are abusing your conscience he wants to remain an Episcopal?
My advice to you, other than to advise you both to become Catholic, is to point out that Mr. Akinola's version of Episcopalianism is open to you. There are Episcopal congregations that are already in his camp in the US and the Episcopal church in the US has not, to my knowledge, excommunicated Mr. Akinola or his supporters.
Technically, you and Mr. Akinola are in the same church still - or is your husband so dedicated to the left wing of the Episcopal church that he would refuse to listen to Mr. Akinola?
If your husband's basic belief is that sodomy is a good thing and that Christian bishops should leave their wives and take on live-in boyfriends, then there isn't much you can do. Does your husband have a view on Paul's Epistle to the Romans? How does he reconcile that Epistle to current situation of the ECUSA?
It's Catholic with a lower "c".
Baptism: Immersion Only?Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse." They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being "buried" and "raised" with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner, but the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring..."
Baptism in the Early Church
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.
The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.
The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).
Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."
No, the root word for baptism means "to bathe" which can mean immerse, but does not have that exclusive meaning.
And the Catholic Church does not forbid baptism by immersion.
That's not entirely true. Women's ordination was raised as an issue and defeated (I am unsure whether it was at the House of Bishops or at General Convention). Dissident women then presented themselves before Bishop Moore in New York City and he refused to ordain them. It was certainly a put up job - Moore sanctimoniously proclaimed "my hands are tied", and there is now a statue of that sacred moment in the Cathedral of St. John the Diviner.
The dissidents then found a bishop who would ordain them in Philadelphia. Several of this group later came out as lesbians.
Presented with a done deal, the next General Convention (1976) ratified the ordinations, and did not require the women to be re-ordained.
Until recently I was for women's ordination, or at least I did not think it that important an issue compared to other things going on in the church. The Robinson scandal caused me to reexamine my position. Many heretics I debated on Robinson stated that gay ordination was just like women's ordination. I usually responded that this position was a straw man as well as a slur on women. I did, however, go back and study the history of how women's ordination happened. I discovered there was some truth to what the heretics said. I found the same sort of egotistical, prideful sense of political entitlement was behind those pushing for women's ordination as is demonstrated by today's gay advocates. In both cases there was a lot of rhetoric about one's "right" to hold a position of authority and to be a priest. There was little or no expression that God was calling one to the priesthood.
Regardless of the theological difficulties presented by women's ordination, how it was done smacked of sinful pride, contempt for tradition, and power politics in its worst form. I cannot see the hand of the Holy Spirit in it.
Seems to me, just skip the splinter activist groups and come home.... Mass is offered 7 days a week, stop on in.
In this useage, "Catholic" should be spelled with a small "c" and means the universal Christian church. Spelled with a capital "C" it usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
Most mainline Potestant churches accept baptism by the Catholic church. Also, most mainline Potestant churches do not believe in "re-baptism".
It's ironic that the Baptist denomination will not accept other denomination's Baptism and re-baptize and deny Baptism to children.
If the Roman Catholic Church would reform itself of some its extra-Biblical traditions and theology, I would definitely consider it.
It actually says, "catholic and apostolic..."
I would accpet the invitation in a heartbeat, and it is definately time for all the splinter groups to regather.
But the Holy Mother Church must extend her humility one more time and accept she may have strayed and review all her doctrines and principles in light of one simple question, "What does G-d require?"
She doesn't even have to promise to change anything, just to honestly ask and answer the question.
Shalom.
"The Catholic church recognizes most Protestant baptisms and visa versa."
Absolutely false... Protestant churches recognize Catholic baptisms, Catholicism does not recognize protestant baptisms. You are 100% incorrect on this statement.
There are probably tons of sodomite Reform Jewish rabbis.
To be a catechumen in the church you must be baptized in a doctrinally orthodox Protestant church (Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc). Not one that rejects the Trinity (Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians).
This comment is interesting:
...the Catholic Church continues to uphold traditional sexual morality...
Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church aggressively root out the communists and homosexuals which infested our priesthood since the 1950's? Why hasn't the Catholic Church discarded and forbid the excesses in what passes as a mass after Vatican II was found to be contrary to the guarantee of Pope St. Pius X and endorsement of all successors until Pope Paul?
What will you and other NO people think and do when the Church realizes its errors and reverts to pre-Vatican II rubrics and society?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.