[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I should feel special then. I was asked to leave the RC church voluntarily or face a hearing for the purpose of excommunication based on believing and promoting hereesy within the church. I was guilty of promoting eternal security, the sufficiency of the cross for the atonement of sin, th edenial of purgatory, denying that Mary was the immaculate Conception and co redemptrix, and that prayers to teh saints were sincere but misguided and that we should pray to the Lord alone.

From this description it basically sounds like you set up an alternative teaching office and were trying to dissuade congregants from being Roman Catholic. Why do you think they regarded you as willfully and actively opposed to the Church?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

From this description it basically sounds like you set up an alternative teaching office and were trying to dissuade congregants from being Roman Catholic. Why do you think they regarded you as willfully and actively opposed to the Church?

Well I was attacking Catholic Doctrine as wrong biblically. I didn't even start that way. Just through interacting with the parishoners I was having people come up and ask me lots of questions. I wasn't trying to cause dissension or problems, it just developed that way.

[Barchester]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I was attacking Catholic Doctrine as wrong biblically. I didn't even start that way. Just through interacting with the parishoners I was having people come up and ask me lots of questions. I wasn't trying to cause dissension or problems, it just developed that way.

Being brand new to these forums (strangely searching guitar tabs for a youth minister and noticing a theology board), I feel it strange to weigh in now but nonetheless here I am.

I think Chrysostom is correct. You in fact were setting up an alternative teaching office (yourself) as you believe that Catholic Doctrine is wrong biblically.

Chrysostom are you Catholic?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

...they had an Inquisitor?

Scary. Which diocese was this, and when?

The office of the Inquisitor never ceased. I don't think they use torture anymore, but a dominican or Jesuit within a diocese can (at least back then) act as the Inquisitor for the diocese in matters of dealing with heresy.

I think Chrysostom is correct. You in fact were setting up an alternative teaching office (yourself) as you believe that Catholic Doctrine is wrong biblically.

Yes I was, though it was with an iccocence. I was new to Scripture and in my learning I was discovery conflicts and was exuberant in expressing my discoveries.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Barchester

Being brand new to these forums (strangely searching guitar tabs for a youth minister and noticing a theology board), I feel it strange to weigh in now but nonetheless here I am.

I think Chrysostom is correct. You in fact were setting up an alternative teaching office (yourself) as you believe that Catholic Doctrine is wrong biblically.

Chrysostom are you Catholic?

Hello Barchester. My name is John. (Who would have thought?) Nice to meet you. I was at Cambridge in July and stopped by Oxford for a day on my way out of the country. The martyr's memorial made me cry. A lot.

Unfortunately, I'm not Catholic. Apparently they're worried that their Jesus might be too good for me -- something about eating and drinking judgment upon myself and crossing my arms over my chest at the Eucharist. So I must continue to admire from afar some of God's great works. But at least I was invited to help out with some Confirmation retreats!

[Barchester]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Hello Barchester. My name is John. (Who would have thought?) Nice to meet you. I was at Cambridge in July and stopped by Oxford for a day on my way out of the country. The martyr's memorial made me cry. A lot.

Lovely to have your acquaintance. Unfortunately, I must retain a certain degree of anonymity due to my profession having to do with with government and all that. I'm a sometime student at Magdalen College and a subdeacon (well, equivalent now that minor orders are vaguely out) in the CofE.

Yes, even though people disagree about religion, burning at the stake is a load of rubbish. It was a sad time. I find it appropriate it is quite near Pusey House.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Unfortunately, I'm not Catholic.

Well as Michael Ramsey said, we are all catholics by virtue of our baptism. It's refreshing that you used the word 'unfortunately' though. I'm not a Catholic (in the fullest sense of the term naturally) either, but Lord willing, will be soon. The latest Apostolic Constitution is very generous for us.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Apparently they're worried that their Jesus might be too good for me -- something about eating and drinking judgment upon myself and crossing my arms over my chest at the Eucharist. So I must continue to admire from afar some of God's great works. But at least I was invited to help out with some Confirmation retreats!

Are you referring to the fact that only confirmed Catholics may receive? Is this an issue to which you object or were you making a joke and you have other theological differences that preclude you?

You were invited to help out with some confirmation retreats were you? Here in England (which diocese)? Surely then you cannot be too far from Catholicism then, right?

Pleasure to meet you and again, I apologise for my (frustrating maybe?) anonymity.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Barchester

Well as Michael Ramsey said, we are all catholics by virtue of our baptism. It's refreshing that you used the word 'unfortunately' though. I'm not a Catholic (in the fullest sense of the term naturally) either, but Lord willing, will be soon. The latest Apostolic Constitution is very generous for us.

If you don't mind me asking (and it's oddly enough, relevant to the topic of communion) are you referring to the Pope's recent offer to Anglicans a new home in the Catholic church?

I'm studying in England at the moment (since September, until this Thursday) and I find the situation very interesting. If it's too off topic for this thread, I won't be too let down.

[Barchester]

Originally Posted by nolidad

The office of the Inquisitor never ceased. I don't think they use torture anymore, but a dominican or Jesuit within a diocese can (at least back then) act as the Inquisitor for the diocese in matters of dealing with heresy.

[...] Yes I was, though it was with an iccocence. I was new to Scripture and in my learning I was discovery conflicts and was exuberant in expressing my discoveries.

Good Lord, which diocese was this? In the UK (and it seems not a few dioceses in Europe and America too) heretical--from the RCC point of view--theology not only runs rampant among lay people (which they don't seem to care about) but unfortunately also among many priests and even bishops (the clergy of Liverpool and Austria come immediately to mind).

Were you just a layman who was asking questions of other parishioners, or were you in some kind of official leadership role? Or perhaps you did more than simply ask questions?

This is rather unheard of in the UK these days.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Barchester

Are you referring to the fact that only confirmed Catholics may receive? Is this an issue to which you object or were you making a joke and you have other theological differences that preclude you?

A bit of a joke. They start getting antsy about the fact that I'm not prepared to commit to the doctrine of transubstantiation or to regard the Pope as something more than first of equals. And the fact that I'm a member of a Presbyterian church.

Originally Posted by Barchester

You were invited to help out with some confirmation retreats were you? Here in England (which diocese)? Surely then you cannot be too far from Catholicism then, right?

Here in Texas, actually. And I'm... well... I think there's still reason to protest, but too many Protestants have forgotten the fact that the purpose of our protest is to serve Christ's church -- one, holy, catholic, apostolic, not sectarian -- and that requires we always be in a very robust sense ecumenically-minded.

Originally Posted by Barchester

Pleasure to meet you and again, I apologise for my (frustrating maybe?) anonymity.

Not a problem at all, friend.

[Barchester]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

If you don't mind me asking (and it's oddly enough, relevant to the topic of communion) are you referring to the Pope's recent offer to Anglicans a new home in the Catholic church?

I'm studying in England at the moment (since September, until this Thursday) and I find the situation very interesting. If it's too off topic for this thread, I won't be too let down.

Yes, I am indeed referring to the Pope's recent offer to Anglicans.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Barchester

Yes, I am indeed referring to the Pope's recent offer to Anglicans.

I wonder if we can pose this as a sort of inverse question to the original.

What the Pope did in this offer was not simply allow for Anglicans to participate in the Eucharist of the Catholic church (since it is my understanding that anyone baptized and in good standing with their own church is in partial-communion with the Catholic church - and in the case of not being able to take communion with their own church, could participate in Catholic communion (maybe this last part is from the Church of England, correct me if I'm wrong)).

Certainly this is not the same as having an open communion. The Pope has offered a way into the Catholic Church for Anglicans that's not simply available to other denominations (leaving the local clergy intact as well as the spouses of the Anglican clergy).

In relation to the original question about barring people from communion, what does it mean for the Catholic church to be able to extend communion to people while leaving their local institutions intact?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Barchester

Good Lord, which diocese was this? In the UK (and it seems not a few dioceses in Europe and America too) heretical--from the RCC point of view--theology not only runs rampant among lay people (which they don't seem to care about) but unfortunately also among many priests and even bishops (the clergy of Liverpool and Austria come immediately to mind).

Were you just a layman who was asking questions of other parishioners, or were you in some kind of official leadership role? Or perhaps you did more than simply ask questions?

This is rather unheard of in the UK these days.

Well this was back on teh late 70's in Massachusetts. From myunderstanding ( I really cannot speak of modern times) teh office of the Inquisitor (though ominous sounding they do not have the old devices), is an office in every diocese- many times left unfilled, but on the books. A dominican was the one priest who would fillthe office (harking back to historic times).

Yes I was just a layman who had recently been saved and returned to worship- so I ahd returned to my roots-the RCC.

I was a layman, who was devouring Scripture and excited about the Word. At forst I didn't even make the connection I was contradicting several established church doctrines- I was just sharing what I was learning.

It took much study and tortured nights to realize I was in conflict with the church. When confronted by the senior prelate- I prayed and could not back down from what I had learned form Scripture. That was when I was given the choice of leaving or face a diocesan tribunal.

[Barchester]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I wonder if we can pose this as a sort of inverse question to the original.

What the Pope did in this offer was not simply allow for Anglicans to participate in the Eucharist of the Catholic church (since it is my understanding that anyone baptized and in good standing with their own church is in partial-communion with the Catholic church - and in the case of not being able to take communion with their own church, could participate in Catholic communion (maybe this last part is from the Church of England, correct me if I'm wrong)).

I'm not an expert on Anglicanorum Coetibus by any means, but we here in Forward in Faith have always understood this to mean that we must actually convert to the Roman Catholic Church (sign agreement to the Catechism, be confirmed and ordained in the RCC). Before being confirmed in the RCC we are not allowed to receive Communion (unless, as you say, in extreme circumstances, and then only by permission of the local bishop).

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

Certainly this is not the same as having an open communion. The Pope has offered a way into the Catholic Church for Anglicans that's not simply available to other denominations (leaving the local clergy intact as well as the spouses of the Anglican clergy).

Very true.

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

In relation to the original question about barring people from communion, what does it mean for the Catholic church to be able to extend communion to people while leaving their local institutions intact?

Here's Anglicanorum Coetibus itself:
Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church

And here are the accompanying Complementary Norms:
Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus