|
3 members (Fr. Al, theophan, 1 invisible),
115
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,296
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Friend,
Well, if THAT'S the future Latin Church, then you can have it!
It's Orthodoxy for me, then!
Alex Me too, Alex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311 |
Originally posted by djs: ... parishes are also being seized by Bishops ... Religious Affiliation: Guess That was a cheap shot, DJS. Shall I guess *your* religious affliation? I think "Protestant" would more accurately describe the "FutureChurch" organization. God bless, Karen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311 |
Originally posted by GMmcnabb: I congratulate the Bishop for taking such action if his intention truly was to stamp out future church.  The problem is, we don't *know* the reason for his closing the church... until we do, we really should hold off on making judgements... God bless, Karen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
MizByz:
I am puzzled when I read comments that seem to ignore the legal structures of the Catholic Church and most Orthodox juridictions - together with the legal precedent in US courts upholding these structures; I wonder what tradition informs the comments. I checked the personal infomation page of the poster and found an apparent invitation to guess the religious affiliation. I accepted the invitation, to succintly convey my puzzlement. I assure you that absent the explicit invitation I would not have made such a guess, and would have phrased the response differently. But given the explicit invitation, I don't think that accepting it constitutes a cheap shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311 |
Originally posted by djs:
MizByz:
I am puzzled when I read comments that seem to ignore the legal structures of the Catholic Church and most Orthodox juridictions - together with the legal precedent in US courts upholding these structures; I wonder what tradition informs the comments. I checked the personal infomation page of the poster and found an apparent invitation to guess the religious affiliation. I accepted the invitation, to succintly convey my puzzlement. I assure you that absent the explicit invitation I would not have made such a guess, and would have phrased the response differently. But given the explicit invitation, I don't think that accepting it constitutes a cheap shot. Hi, Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here-- Ignog was not in support of "FutureChurch", or of the parish's website link to it, if that's what you thought. He even said that if that is why the bishop wants to close the parish, he doesn't blame him. Or do you think that bishops should just be able to close down their parishes at will? Incog has a personal connection to the parish, and is likely upset. You might want to offer your prayers regarding this sad situation, and not flip insults. That's all I'm saying. God bless, Karen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Karen, I would certainly agree that the manner in which a Bishop exercises his office is a suitable subject for discussion - especially if conducted with appropriate reservation about facts not in evidence.
The point I am making, however, is that any notion that a parish or its trustess, rather than the diocese and its overseer, owns the assests of a parish seems to me to be from some other tradition, not ours. There's nothing flip in that - especially given our history. And it is worth bearing in mind as lessons from the parishioners of Holy Rosary church are recommended.
djs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 311 |
Originally posted by djs:
Karen, I would certainly agree that the manner in which a Bishop exercises his office is a suitable subject for discussion - especially if conducted with appropriate reservation about facts not in evidence.
The point I am making, however, is that any notion that a parish or its trustess, rather than the diocese and its overseer, owns the assests of a parish seems to me to be from some other tradition, not ours. There's nothing flip in that - especially given our history. And it is worth bearing in mind as lessons from the parishioners of Holy Rosary church are recommended.
djs DJS, I see your point and agree to an extent re bishops, and not the parish, being in charge of the parish. We don't know the situation at the church, either (at least I don't). The link to the dissenting website might be indicative of a major spiritual problem at the parish; the bishop could have good reason for acting as he is. Yes, the gov't of the Church is definitely a subject worth discussing... personally, while I believe the bishop should be in charge, it seems to me that bishops should not be little monarchs who don't have to answer to anyone, as is pretty much the case now. I believe that in the Orthodox Churches, the bishops are elected by the people... of course, that can have a down side too... God bless, Karen
|
|
|
|
|
