Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

METHODIST CHURCH DISPLAYS VIRGIN OF GUADALUPE
Spirit Daily ^ | December 12, 2004 | Mike Brown

Posted on 12/12/2004 3:26:17 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: muawiyah
I've often wondered if a Jew had been present if he'd participated in the burnt offering, or join the hard-core Christian "fundies" and the Moslems at the back of the room. Any guesses?

Unngh.................:-)

101 posted on 12/13/2004 10:00:55 AM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
They need to find a Roman Catholic parish to join.

They may be having trouble finding a Catholic Parish that isn't run by lunatics. That can be difficult in some parts (BTDT).

102 posted on 12/13/2004 10:06:07 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Still makes him a heretic though.


103 posted on 12/13/2004 2:22:20 PM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

So you don't except the fact that people go to heaven?


104 posted on 12/13/2004 2:25:18 PM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
"Mothers scared children with tales of Jesuits "

My high school basketball coach did the same thing to us. They were the only team to consistently beat us.

105 posted on 12/13/2004 2:28:23 PM PST by bayourod (Our troops are already securing our borders against terrorists. They're killing them in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

In the words of McLaughlin: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


106 posted on 12/13/2004 2:29:58 PM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Good reply.


107 posted on 12/13/2004 2:31:25 PM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: CouncilofTrent
So you don't except the fact that people go to heaven?

I do not believe they hang around listening to prayers. I believe their spirits are set free, but Gods universe is much larger than what we know as mortals, infinitely larger.

I believe in angels. That is their job.

I believe mortals can become angels, but they would not retain their earthly names.

Why do you ask? What difference does it make to you, what I believe?

108 posted on 12/13/2004 2:46:27 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I dont have time for this. I have university examinations. Sorry:).


109 posted on 12/13/2004 2:48:10 PM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: CouncilofTrent
Neither do I.

Nor do I desire to.

110 posted on 12/13/2004 2:49:53 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CouncilofTrent
the saints remain dead in the ground

At the Transfiguration, James, Peter and John saw Jesus in his glorified state speaking to Moses and Elijah. They had been dead for centuries at this point and yet they were very much alive and aware of his plans. The facts as reported in the Bible seem to refute your argument.

111 posted on 12/13/2004 2:52:43 PM PST by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat; CouncilofTrent; NYer; sitetest; Aquinasfan; dubyaismypresident; Salvation
" Why do you ask? What difference does it make to you, what I believe?"

I don't know why Council of Trent would ask the question. As to what difference it makes what you believe, well to me its interesting to hear what other people believe and if they are in error about what the Orthodox or in most cases the Romans believe it is appropriate to point that out and try to correct the misapprehension.

I'm interested in what you believe because I come at the Faith from such a different place than protestants do. I believe what the Church everywhere believed for at least 1500 years. Things have changed rather dramatically in the West since the Protestant Revolution in the 1500s. Things didn't change, or at least didn't change much, in the East. Coming out of that religious heritage, I am oftentimes bewildered by what various protestant groups profess to believe and proclaim as the original Christian Faith. In the meantime, you should know that so far as the Orthodox are concerned, you are quite free to believe whatever you want and we won't call you names for that.
112 posted on 12/13/2004 3:39:04 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Well, it appears to be more than curiosity.

I sense a liberal dose of judgment that is intermixed.

Protestants should not be proclaiming that their religion is somehow original. I do not think that, but I am not representative of all protestants nor even some of them. I am a individual who has developed beliefs over a period of years and I don't necessarily follow any particular dogma or religion in it's entirety.

It is rare indeed that I even discuss it. The topic is too volatile, because of identity or a sense of group think that I find uncomfortable and therefore avoid like the plague.

So please don't assume that I am representative of the Protestant sect. The UMC has been responsible for my training, but that's about where it ends.

However, I was and remain concerned that this particular church has allowed this icon into the sanctuary. It is very unusual and not a good idea.

This is the only reason I posted on this thread, but I have been defending my beliefs ever since.

What is wrong with that picture?

113 posted on 12/13/2004 4:07:58 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
you should know that so far as the Orthodox are concerned, you are quite free to believe whatever you want and we won't call you names for that.

Now that you mention it, I have noted this in my conversations on FR.

Maybe it is because my Grandparents immigrated from Eastern Europe, or perhaps it is because I took Latin in HS. :-)

114 posted on 12/13/2004 4:13:58 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat; CouncilofTrent; NYer; sitetest; Aquinasfan; dubyaismypresident; Salvation
"Well, it appears to be more than curiosity.

I sense a liberal dose of judgment that is intermixed."

In all honesty I am just curious. The only real theological discussions I have ever had with protestants have been with Anglicans, probably because there is quite a bit of common ground there, at least with people like some of the people on these Free Republic threads. A group of Romans and Orthodox once had a very long discussion with some conservative Presbyterians here mostly about "Original Sin", Pelagianism and Araminianism which I found theologically very interesting and I think they found interesting what the Church in the East thought about this very fundamental issue. Most other protestants come at the Faith neither from a patristic point of view like the Orthodox or a scholastic one like the Romans, but rather from some variation of Sola Scriptura. Because of that deeply held and practiced way of thinking about Christianity, veneration of icons and other parts of both the dogma of the original Church and of the Holy Tradition, practices and beliefs which are virtually the sine qua nons of my existence as an Orthodox Christian, are rejected (though I am sure its not because the beliefs are Orthodox) and Christianity looked at in what appears to me to be a very individualistic way which often leads those Christians into beliefs and practices which are antithetical to what the Church as a Eucharistic community held to be correct for most of its earthly existence. Am I being judgmental? In a sense I suppose I am. To me the ancient Faith is the best way to advance in theosis both individually and communally for everyone in the world. I think it would be great if everyone adhered to it. But if people don't want to, well God respects our Free Will, who would I be to scorn your choices made by you for you? The Orthodox view on this, generally, is as a young friend of mine who is a convert from fundamental protestantism once said,"Orthodox are always happy to learn about your beliefs and tell you about theirs. If you are interested in Orthodoxy, great, they talk some more. If not, great, but stay and have another cup of cafe and a piece of baklava."

" However, I was and remain concerned that this particular church has allowed this icon into the sanctuary. It is very unusual and not a good idea.

This is the only reason I posted on this thread, but I have been defending my beliefs ever since.

What is wrong with that picture?"

As you are a Methodist, I think it is perfectly consistent for you to express astonishment at the placement of an icon in one of your churches. If I found an Orthodox Church without icons, I'd be off to the bishop or metropolitan so fast it would make your head spin. You commented that Romans worship icons. Some correction followed which is appropriate because you were misinformed. Then came the challenges to defend what we might call iconoclasm. To me, that is also fair. Faith and practice and dogma, to Romans and Orthodox are extremely important and we have reasons why we believe what we believe and do what we do. The assumption is that protestants have reasons for their beliefs and practices also. Discussing them is what we do among ourselves. The discussions we have had here have been mostly quite enlightening for both Romans and Orthodox and those discussions usually come about in the form of a challenge to defend a point of doctrine or practice. Its not an offensive thing, its just something we do to learn. This is an ancient practice in the East. One of the early Church Fathers once complained that he couldn't get his daily errands done in Constantinople because the butcher and the shoe maker were more interested in arguing fine points about the nature of Christ or the procession of the Holy Spirit than they were in doing their jobs! There really is nothing wrong with the picture at all if you understand where we are coming from. God Bless! Now, how about that cup of cafe, gliko and a piece of baklava?
115 posted on 12/13/2004 5:23:55 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
>Now, how about that cup of cafe, gliko and a piece of baklava?


116 posted on 12/13/2004 5:36:07 PM PST by NeoCaveman (There is no dufu but DUFU and PJ Comix is its writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I don't know why but "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" from the liturgy of St. James? has been in my head since yesterday afternoon. It is so haunting and chillingly wonderful.


117 posted on 12/13/2004 5:37:01 PM PST by tiki (Won one against the Flipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Well said, friend.


118 posted on 12/13/2004 5:37:50 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I meant to add that it is in the Methodist Hymnal.


119 posted on 12/13/2004 5:38:29 PM PST by tiki (Won one against the Flipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
###....."worship Icons.(which is why I do not belong to the Catholic Church)"####

Sorry but I have been a Catholic for 72 years and have yet to worship and Icon. Christ Crucified and his Mother live in our hearts. Any other way is not quite Kosher
120 posted on 12/13/2004 5:38:48 PM PST by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed. Pray for our own souls to receive the grace of a happy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident

LOL! But I note that whoever made the cafe should be ashamed; no "Kaimaki" ( a light foam level) on the top!


121 posted on 12/13/2004 5:45:59 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Fair enough, and well said.

I wish I had the historical and religious training to argue with you over the fine points. But I just have not wished to develop that knowledge.

I probably would be pretty good at it! I have an engineers mind on most other subjects, except this one.

I have always viewed my spirituality as a private matter. I suppose I am more liken to our Deist founders in that regard.

I wish to quietly live out the balance of my life as I quietly prepare for death and beyond.

I have been a bit more vocal since experiencing Gibson's "Passion" and my faith was renewed to higher plane at that time, or perhaps just clarified as to the meaning of the sacrifice.

We shall see where that leads me and my relationship with God and religion. But I doubt I would ever have the depth of knowledge it would take to argue the fine points on this fine forum.

122 posted on 12/13/2004 5:46:32 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: franky
Please don't take offense. I have learned some new words and understanding since making that post. (like veneration)

Can't blame me too much for not understanding the concept. It is totally foreign to me.

123 posted on 12/13/2004 5:59:47 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat; CouncilofTrent; NYer; sitetest; Aquinasfan; dubyaismypresident; Salvation
"I wish I had the historical and religious training to argue with you over the fine points. But I just have not wished to develop that knowledge."

Please don't feel that way. Theological discussions are fine to a point. After that without the proper guidance and prayer, such discussions can spin off into some pretty dangerous territory, spiritually speaking. A number of us were recently involved in a discussion which reached that point and perhaps went a bit beyond it. The demons were howling outside the door of the library (I do mean that). One by one, and quite quickly, we dropped the thread because we perceived the perilous place we had wandered into.

All of us firmly believe that our Liturgies and services and devotions provide any person with quite literally everything which is needed for individual theosis within a Eucharistic community. All the theological discussing we do helps some of us along the way, but its an addition and nothing more. My great grandmother from Greece was a very holy woman whose Faith defined her existence. She couldn't spell dogma or canon and undoubtedly would laugh at all of us amateur theologians and tell us to go light a candle, incense and kiss our icons and say our prayers.

You'll do just fine, I have no doubt, my friend. Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.
124 posted on 12/13/2004 6:01:04 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
My great grandmother from Greece was a very holy woman whose Faith defined her existence.

This sounds very much like my late Grandmother. She came to this country around 1923-26 from Yugoslavia.

It totally defined her in every way. I have never seen anything like it before or since.

125 posted on 12/13/2004 6:08:43 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

"This sounds very much like my late Grandmother. She came to this country around 1923-26 from Yugoslavia.

It totally defined her in every way. I have never seen anything like it before or since."

Stop by any Orthodox Church on a Sunday. Places are full of them!


126 posted on 12/13/2004 6:11:24 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Shawls, veils and the smell of mothballs!
127 posted on 12/13/2004 6:14:13 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I meant that reverently......:-)


128 posted on 12/13/2004 6:15:45 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

She was from the Balkans, wasn't she! You know, they still use mothballs over there. At my aunt's house the mothball smell is so strong my eyes water and the food tastes of them if its left out any length of time! But I've never seen a moth in Greece!


129 posted on 12/13/2004 6:16:17 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
The smell gags me to this day. We visited frequently as a child and every time I think of her, I smell the mothballs.

I have some that I use to control stray cats in my boat, and I have to store them in the outside shed.

130 posted on 12/13/2004 6:21:58 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
One of the early Church Fathers once complained that he couldn't get his daily errands done in Constantinople because the butcher and the shoe maker were more interested in arguing fine points about the nature of Christ or the procession of the Holy Spirit than they were in doing their jobs!

Now they're watching porn over the internet. I wouldn't call this progress.

131 posted on 12/14/2004 4:36:01 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: NYer; The Grammarian
I'm an ordained Methodist elder (equivalent of your priest), NYer, in the United Methodist Church.

It is necessary to point out to you on this thread one of the unchangeable "Articles of Religion" of the United Methodist Church. (This is in the 1700's language of John Wesley.)

Article 14—Of Purgatory The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God.

That said, this does not say that one cannot have a serious discussion about art and the church as opposed to veneration/adoration etc. In other words, it's the PURPOSE of any "art" that makes it appropriate or inappropriate.

If for reflection, commemoration, etc., then there's no problem. As soon (I'm speaking about our church) as one crosses the line into veneration, adoration, worship, etc., then one has violated our 14th Article of Religion.

132 posted on 12/14/2004 6:57:05 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; The Grammarian
I'm an ordained Methodist elder (equivalent of your priest), NYer, in the United Methodist Church.

It is necessary to point out to you on this thread one of the unchangeable "Articles of Religion" of the United Methodist Church. (This is in the 1700's language of John Wesley.)

Article 14—Of Purgatory The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God.

That said, this does not say that one cannot have a serious discussion about art and the church as opposed to veneration/adoration etc. In other words, it's the PURPOSE of any "art" that makes it appropriate or inappropriate.

If for reflection, commemoration, etc., then there's no problem. As soon (I'm speaking about our church) as one crosses the line into veneration, adoration, worship, etc., then one has violated our 14th Article of Religion.

133 posted on 12/14/2004 7:01:25 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Given that the student pastor of this congregation is a student at Garrett-Evangelical, I guess I'm simultaneously surprised and not. On the one hand, G-E has been increasingly heterodox over the years; on the other hand, its heterodoxy has always been directly to paganism, not to Roman Catholicism.

Given what the article says about the parishioners reciting the rosary and parading the 2-foot-high statue around, it sounds like they ARE violating Article 14, though.

134 posted on 12/14/2004 7:59:35 AM PST by The Grammarian ("Preaching is in the shadows. The world does not believe in it." --W.E. Sangster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
parading the statue

Yes, it would appear so. You and I know it, but if they have a complicit bishop, article 14 won't be enforced.

Greetings, brother, did you get my answer to the question about ordination?

135 posted on 12/14/2004 8:05:01 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Yes, it would appear so. You and I know it, but if they have a complicit bishop, article 14 won't be enforced.

Isn't Illinois Bishop Sprague's little fiefdom still? If so, there's no way.

Greetings, brother, did you get my answer to the question about ordination?

Yep, and thanks for the info. I don't think I really have a 'problem' with it, per se, so much as I just wish I could find more satisfying reasons why we do it. ;)

136 posted on 12/14/2004 8:16:21 AM PST by The Grammarian ("Preaching is in the shadows. The world does not believe in it." --W.E. Sangster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
When you mention your discomfort with icons, are you aware that Christ himself is an icon?

Read Colossians 1:15 os estin eikwn qeon aoratou ("He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.")

137 posted on 12/14/2004 10:15:03 AM PST by Romulus (Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
When you mention your discomfort with icons, are you aware that Christ himself is an icon?

Read Colossians 1:15 os estin eikwn qeon aoratou ("He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.")

And we worship that icon of the Father--so are you saying we should directly worship the man-made icons as well as the begotten-not-made one?

138 posted on 12/14/2004 11:50:08 AM PST by The Grammarian ("Preaching is in the shadows. The world does not believe in it." --W.E. Sangster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Of course not. We don't worship Christ because he's the icon of the Father. We worship Christ because of who he is. It's the fact that Jesus is fully divine in himself that makes him worship-worthy.

Suppose on Mt. Sinai, instead of writing the Law with his own finger on tablets of stone, God had written a carved or painted image. Would it have been worship-worthy? Not on your life, any more than stone tablets or the Bible is.

When we venerate (not "adore"! not "worship"!) sacred images, we are not venerating wood or paint or anything that resides in the image. Our veneration passes to the prototype for whom it's intended. When you gaze lovingly on a photo of someone special in your life, is your love directed at paper and chemicals or for the person they represent?

139 posted on 12/14/2004 1:07:35 PM PST by Romulus (Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: xzins; NYer; The Grammarian; Romulus
"As soon (I'm speaking about our church) as one crosses the line into veneration, adoration, worship, etc., then one has violated our 14th Article of Religion."

This is likely clear from the rule you have quoted from John Wesley. But I have a question. I assume that Wesley did not think he was creating an entirely new and previously unheard of religion when Methodism was established. If I am correct, it appears that your 14th Article is in direct contradiction to the decision of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which was a council of the entire One Church, cited earlier. It would seem to be the enactment in your 25 Articles of a point of positive heresy. Far from being a "Romish" doctrine, this was a statement of dogma of the One Church in the persons of mostly Eastern bishops and the Empress. Would John Wesley have been aware of this (I assume he was as he was an educated man) and how did he deal with this apparent heresy? If he knowingly rejected this dogma proclaimed by the council, why and what other dogmas did he reject and on what basis. Thanks.
140 posted on 12/14/2004 1:37:40 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Of course not. We don't worship Christ because he's the icon of the Father. We worship Christ because of who he is. It's the fact that Jesus is fully divine in himself that makes him worship-worthy.

But what Paul is driving at in this passage is that Christ is "the image of the invisible God" because it is "by Him all things were created, both in the heavens on on earth," etc., and "all things have been created by Him and for Him." In other words, Christ is the "image" of God because he IS God--"He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). If Christ is to be worshiped because he is the "icon" of the Father, then why not worship other icons? Given your prooftext, we worship an icon, right? Why not worship all icons?

On the other hand, perhaps "icons" really are the things they represent, just as Christ is the "icon" of God and is therefore God?

Suppose on Mt. Sinai, instead of writing the Law with his own finger on tablets of stone, God had written a carved or painted image. Would it have been worship-worthy? Not on your life, any more than stone tablets or the Bible is. When we venerate (not "adore"! not "worship"!) sacred images, we are not venerating wood or paint or anything that resides in the image. Our veneration passes to the prototype for whom it's intended. When you gaze lovingly on a photo of someone special in your life, is your love directed at paper and chemicals or for the person they represent?

You're the one who tried to say that even Protestants worship Christ, the "Icon" (image) of the Father.

141 posted on 12/14/2004 3:22:21 PM PST by The Grammarian ("Preaching is in the shadows. The world does not believe in it." --W.E. Sangster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; xzins
This is likely clear from the rule you have quoted from John Wesley. But I have a question. I assume that Wesley did not think he was creating an entirely new and previously unheard of religion when Methodism was established. If I am correct, it appears that your 14th Article is in direct contradiction to the decision of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which was a council of the entire One Church, cited earlier. It would seem to be the enactment in your 25 Articles of a point of positive heresy. Far from being a "Romish" doctrine, this was a statement of dogma of the One Church in the persons of mostly Eastern bishops and the Empress. Would John Wesley have been aware of this (I assume he was as he was an educated man) and how did he deal with this apparent heresy? If he knowingly rejected this dogma proclaimed by the council, why and what other dogmas did he reject and on what basis. Thanks.

The Methodist 25 Articles of Religion are the direct descendant of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Wesley was an Anglican priest who never wanted Methodists--originally a sort of 'religious society' within the Church of England--to separate. In America, the situation changed after the Revolutionary War enough that he believed the Methodists in America were not being spiritually shepherded by the often-hostile Anglican priests in the country. So he drew up the 25 Articles from the Anglican 39, and sent Rev. Dr. Thomas Coke to America to form a new church with Francis Asbury out of the existing Methodists--the Methodist Episcopal Church, from which the present-day United Methodist Church traces its lineage.

So the better question is, why did the Anglicans come up with Article 14 (the numbers of indivudal articles may be different between the 25 Articles and the 39 Articles, but you get what I mean)? I don't have an in-depth answer, but suffice it to say that Protestants as a rule (including Anglicans) don't accept the Ecumenical Councils past the 4th, if even that many.

142 posted on 12/14/2004 3:30:08 PM PST by The Grammarian ("Preaching is in the shadows. The world does not believe in it." --W.E. Sangster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

Thanks for the response. I have pinged sinnosar for a response to my question. Thank-you also for prompting me to finally read the Anglican Articles. Sionnsar, please take a look at my post 140 and Grammarian's reply. Thanks.

"I don't have an in-depth answer, but suffice it to say that Protestants as a rule (including Anglicans) don't accept the Ecumenical Councils past the 4th, if even that many."

Do you know why this is?


143 posted on 12/14/2004 3:47:54 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

You'll be glad to know that Sprague retired this last year and is no longer a bishop anywhere.

He was replaced by a Korean (naturalized American) named Yung (?), who is getting his feet wet, and it appears he, too, might be an oddball.


144 posted on 12/14/2004 4:50:48 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; The Grammarian
Would John Wesley have been aware of this (I assume he was as he was an educated man) and how did he deal with this apparent heresy?

John Wesley was an Anglican priest in the tradition of the Reformation. He, therefore, followed the principle of Sola Scriptura, and with the other parts of the reformation, would not have found the practices of veneration, adoration of relics in the bible, and would, therefore, have found it acceptable to throw those practices overboard.

While Wesley had considerable disagreements theologically with his own calvinistic wing of his own movement, they nonetheless had these things in common.

He would have considered any practice approved by any council that proclaimed anything not provable by scripture as a non-binding or invalid practice.

145 posted on 12/14/2004 4:56:40 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; The Grammarian; Gamecock
Do you know why this is?

I believe it's standard procedure for the reformation era....that was when they believed undo influence by a Roman religio-governmental system began to compromise pure Christianity

Remember as well that the diversion of the Anglican church in a reformation direction took place, not under Henry VIII as many suppose, but under Elizabeth I. England was restored to Roman Catholicism by Mary following Henry's death. Succeeding Mary, Elizabeth turned Henry's pique into historic policy.

146 posted on 12/14/2004 5:18:56 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: xzins; The Grammarian; Gamecock; sionnsar; NYer; Romulus
Thanks for the information. I suspected that it was Reformation type thinking, especially as late as Wesley, which lead to this, but I didn't realize that that type of thinking was as strong in Elizabethan England. Throwing over some of the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils has always struck me as very odd, especially in light of the correspondence between the Lutheran Divines just after Luther with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople where it appears they thought they were throwing out "Romish" practices and this would please the Patriarch. They seemed surprised to find that much of what they thought was "Romish" turned out to be conciliar, but they went ahead anyway and tried to convince the Patriarch of the validity of their positions, after a bit of regrouping. Eventually he told them to go in peace and leave him alone.

What I am taking from this, aside from the obvious, is that the Reformation really was a complete break with the prior practices of the Church, East or West and thus was an even more earth shattering event than I had suspected. Thanks again for the information!
147 posted on 12/14/2004 5:32:04 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
I know this is an older thread, but I just now saw this and wanted to make a few remarks. I am an ordained United Methodist minister. Methodist bishops mostly just move preachers around every two years.

Methodist Bishops do far more than move clergy around: Bishops are responsible for the spiritual lives of their clergy, for ensuring they are properly trained, and for ordaining them (for, in the UMC, only a Bishop may ordain). Bishops have many other duties, including presidential and teaching authority.

As for clergy tenures, we tend to stay longer than 2 years. In my Conference the average stay is now about 6 years.

I think they still confirm the kids, but it's just not a big deal. They waffle on infant baptism as well.

What in the world are you reading that would lead you to think such is the case? The UMC is hardly "waffling" on Infant Baptism. Quite the contrary, in fact. As for confirmation, it is a very "big deal." Perhaps you're thinking about the UMC of the 1940s or 1950s??

Do you know if they still communicate just once a month? Last I heard that's all they did.

Frequency of partaking in Holy Communion will depend upon the congregation. Many celebrate the Eucharist only once a month, but many others offer Communion more frequently. For example, in my congregation the Sacrament of Holy Communion is celebrated in the mornings on the 1st and 3rd Sundays, and in the evenings on the 2nd and 4th Sundays.
148 posted on 12/23/2004 10:35:32 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I understand that this thread is old, but I've been directed here and asked to post a link to the United Methodist Communion Liturgy. For any who might be interested in seeing what the primary Eucharistic Liturgy in the UMC looks like, here it is:

http://www.revneal.org/communionlit1.html


149 posted on 12/23/2004 10:49:20 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg
One branch of our family is Methodist. My grandfather in law was a Methodist minister for something like 65 years (he died in his 90s). Probably my notions on the practices of the church derive in large part from his probably rather old-fashioned Southern Methodist habits (so your 40s & 50s weren't far off.) I will say that he was a saint, I'm glad I was privileged to know him, and I hope he's putting a good word in for us with St. Peter . . . he always stayed on good terms with his counterparts in other denominations so hopefully he will stand by us Catholics . . .

I will say that the North Georgia Conference still plays "musical ministers" to an alarming degree. When my Aunt was buried up in Rome GA, she had been an active member of her church for upwards of 75 years, but all the poor preacher who conducted her funeral could say is that he heard she was a pillar of the church . . . she had been ill for his entire tenure, which at the time of her death was less than six months. We all felt sorry for him . . . wasn't his fault.

And when your frame of reference is daily communication as an ideal and once every Sunday as a minimum requirement, four times a month just doesn't seem like much. < g >

150 posted on 12/23/2004 10:51:59 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson