Protestants and Catholics

[Downunder]

OFFICIAL TITLES GIVEN TO THE POPES OF ROME
The official list of titles of the Pope, in the order in which they are given in the Annuario Pontificio, is: 1> Bishop of Rome, 2> Vicar of Jesus Christ, 3> Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, 4> Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church,
5> Primate of Italy, 6> Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, 7> Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, 8> Servant of the Servants of God.
The official list of titles does not include all the titles that are officially used.
Pope - The best-known title of the Popes, that of "Pope", does not appear in the official list, but is commonly used in the titles of documents, and appears, in abbreviated form, in their signatures. Thus Pope Paul VI signed as "Paulus PP. VI", the "PP." standing for "Papa" ("Pope").
Vicar of Peter and Vicar of Christ -
Early bishops occupying the See of Rome were designated "Vicar of Peter", indicating that they were successors of Saint Peter, the "Prince of the Apostles" or leader of the apostolic Church.
The Roman Missal uses this title in its prayers for a dead Pope.
The designation "Vicar of Christ" was first used of a Pope by the Roman Synod of 495 with reference to Pope Gelasius I. But for long after this the stable designation for the Popes was "Vicar of Peter", while "Vicar of Christ"
was a title used by the Roman Emperors of the East.
Supreme Pontiff and Pontifex Maximus -
The term "Supreme Pontiff" (Summus Pontifex) or, more completely, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis) is one of the official titles of the Pope.
Inscriptions on buildings and coins often use the Latin title "Pontifex Maximus", which is not to be confused with "Summus Pontifex". The title "Pontifex Maximus" dates back to the early years of the Roman Republic.
Beginning with Julius Caesar, it was associated with the Roman Emperors, until Gratian (359–383), under the influence of Saint Ambrose, formally renounced the title.
It is commonly found in inscriptions on buildings erected in the time of a particular Pope and on coins and medals of his reign, and is usually abbreviated as "Pont. Max." or "P.M."
The phrase literally means "Greatest Pontiff", but is often interpreted as "Supreme Pontiff", which is instead a literal translation of "Summus Pontifex."

 

[Brother-Paul]

The RRC never created a pope, btw. It was Jesus who gave the keys to Peter

The RCC online to say, the Pope is on the line to Peter, but never one up with how they think that.

We can all say we are on a line to Adam, on a line to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

Except for...
1. Peter was married. ( 1Cor 9:5; Matt 8:14; )
2. There is no mention in the Bible of Peter ever going to Rome.
3. Peter is called the apostle to the Jews, and Paul is called the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans). Gal 2:7;

Most secular records show the RC church being started by Constantine in the 3rd century.

Thanks B-A-C, in total agreement with all these, emphasis on Constantine around 300AD.

Due to RCC interference, which they had free run to do and change what they wanted, until Bible versions were printed and people could read and write.

One of the changes I don't think has been mentioned so far, forgive me if I missed it, is the deliberate changing of the 10 Commandments.

Approximately 15 years ago I sat in a Catholic church, I was at the wedding of my son, marrying a Catholic girl, he had to agree he was a catholic to be able to marry her, he himself is an atheist. Anyway that is not the point here, as I sat there I looked at an old painted on stone 10 commandments. I looked at it I knew something was wrong, but on the day it never clicked, the more I looked at it and read it the more disturbed I became. I counted the commands there were ten, but it wasn't right. Afterwards I looked it up and this is what I found, cleverly adapted for the RCC beliefs.

Note-1: As we know the 10 Commandments which were 'Written in Stone'
Note-2: As we know 'not one dot or titter' is to be changed in The Word of God, the Holy Bible.


Here are the changes which is cleverly altered, but more important to notice is the changes were made to cover up and make acceptable their practices.


Command 2: REMOVED - You shall not make for yourself an idol.

Command 4: CHANGED FROM
Remember the sabbath day by keeping it Holy - TO - Remember to keep Holy the Lord's Day

Command 10: CHANGED FROM
You shall not covet your neighbours house
TO
Command 9: You shall not covet your neighbours wife
AND
Command 10: You shall not covet your neighbours goods

The RCC took away the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an idol.”

As we know God prohibited idolatry through the commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below, and you shall not bow down to them or worship them.”

However, the Catholic Church set up cross images, with western style Jesus figures, often 3 to 4 tiles larger than a human being which looked down on the congregation, and as we could expect the congregation looked up and worshipped the figurine of Christ. Is this one RCC, no not at all, I have visited a few for various reasons.

Approximately twenty six/seven years ago, would be about three years old in Christ, the local church, place of worship, I attended, a Church of England denomination, there was a coming together of churches in the area, it included several Church of England, a Baptist, a URC and a catholic church. The first three mixed and shared well, but the catholic's Not so. The catholic's did not go to another denomination place of worship, when the other three went to the catholic place of worship there were only 3 or 4 catholic's there, the rest stayed away.

But was so noticable was the 3 to 4 times life looking Jesus, ON THE CROSS! Looking down at the congregation. A life size Mary, and as is common in most RC places of worship, another life size Mary in the garden near a tomb, where the catholics would go and touch the idol. Idol worship it is and this is the reason the catholic's the RCC changed the 10 Commandments.

How could they do and get away with such an abysmal act?

THEY SAY, which is not by the authority of God, or in The Word, that papacy insists that it has the authority to change God’s laws

Artical 30 of the Prompta Bibliotheca, Volume 7, clause 30, states;
The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even Divine Laws!

Total blasphemy!

 

[Brother-Paul]

The pope

How was the first pope created?

The pope (Latin: papa, from Greek: πάππας, romanized: pappas, [2] father"), [3] also known as the supreme pontiff (Pontefex maximus) or the Roman pontiff (Romanus Pontifex), is the bishop of Rome, chief pastor of the worldwide Catholic Church, [4] and head of state or sovereign of the Vatican City State. [5] The primacy of the bishop of Rome is largely derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus, giving him the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

Since 1929, the pope has official residence in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican City, a city-state enclaved within Rome, Italy.

The pope, or any pope, is not on the line of Peter, other than a RCC created line!

There is nothing in scripture to confirm what they say, there is nothing in scripture referring to 'a pope', or his cardinals. It is all RCC created.

Note [5] above, the popes position is largely derived from his role as RCC created apostolic successor to Saint Peter.

It is a man made position; Note; in a man made apostolic palace, in a man made vatican city-state 'enclaved' within Rome, Italy.

No wonder there was a reformation, yet even to this day they continue their old man made practices.

And to say, as stated in the last post...

Artical 30 of the Prompta Bibliotheca, Volume 7, clause 30, states;
The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even Divine Laws!

Is total disrespect for God's Holy Word and everything He stands for, for all generations, I see it as total blasphemy and couldn't find a better way to say it!

Shalom

 

[B-A-C]

Archbishop of Canterbury - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This really isn't much different from the Pope.

• He is the senior primate and chief religious figure of the Church of England (the British sovereign is the supreme governor of the church). Along with his colleague the Archbishop of York he chairs the General Synod and sits on or chairs many of the church's important boards and committees; power in the church is not highly centralised, however, so the two archbishops can often lead only through persuasion. The Archbishop of Canterbury plays a central part in national ceremonies such as coronations; due to his high public profile, his opinions are often in demand by the news media.
• As spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, the archbishop, although without legal authority outside England, is recognised by convention as primus inter pares ("first among equals") of all Anglican primates worldwide. Since 1867 he has convened more or less decennial meetings of worldwide Anglican bishops, the Lambeth Conferences.

 

[Brother-Paul]

I doubt that very much as the whole point of the crucifixion was to cause excruciating suffering by hanging and compressing the rib cage.
Oh them Romans knew how to inflict pain.

It seemed to me to be an idea originating through the RCC.

I agree with what you state brother, I cannot image those carrying our the crucifixion to agree to the request of the one they are crucifying.

It doesn't make sense, the blood would run to his head, he would probably pass out soon, they didn't want that, crucifixion was meant to be excruciating pain.

Shalom

 

[Brother-Paul]

You are right, i did open a can of worms.

As you can see , it will take a miracle to get everyone on the same page.

I know that the antiChrist will come during my lifetime. And i am 62 now.

Time is very short

To get everyone on the same page, as you put it Bill, would take the RCC to accept it's errors, they have never done so, as I stated earlier, they even changed the 10 Commandments, to suit their practices. They removed idol worship and altered other verses see Post #42 above.

I am 72 Bill and I believe we are so close to the Tribulation Period, that is if our Lord has not yet opened the first seal and scroll.

10 years maximum left, I feel.

Governments across the world are changing fast, hardening of hearts is increasing daily, there have been 15 wars involving Israel since 1948, there are wars and rumours of wars daily, earthquakes have increase in numbers and severity over the last 100 years, with the frequency and severity worst in the last 40-50 years. There are raging waters all over the world, children are disobedient to their parents, most of the riots across the world include a large percentage of young ones. Man is going with man and woman with woman as was prophesied.

The end is nearer than most realise or even want to realise.

O come Lord Jesus, but some say it, then want it to be after there holidays, after this or than, a million reasons.

Time is very short, we all need to ensure we are right with God, and all pastors of whatever name, of any flock in their care, need to ensure they have not misled the flock in their coming to Christ.

The RCC will have a lot to answer for, I have even heard them say if you are a catholic you are born again.

They need to read and understand fully John 3:1-21 and 1 Peter 3:21 to name just 2 sections of scripture.

Shalom

 

[Brother-Paul]

Archbishop of Canterbury - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This really isn't much different from the Pope.

Thank you B-A-C,

There isn't a lot of difference but, they don't proclaim to have the following...

Artical 30 of the Prompta Bibliotheca, Volume 7, clause 30, states;
The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even Divine Laws!

My first 7 years in faith was at a CofE place of worship, it was a brand new build building, very well designed, carpets and cushioned seats, but it was only a kuriakon, a building called a church.

Being a new place of worship it attracted many, mainly those from other places of worship that though, erm, new it could suit me nicely. But that was it's big issue. The choir and organ player thought they were God, they controlled everything. But part of the new group, plus those who started in a small hall, had traditional values, many new members were more evangelical, including myself. So there was a real tug of war amongst the members, and the choir were more for traditional.

I remember going to London, I think it was 1991, I went with a friend from another place of worship, the reason was 'March for Jesus'. It was fantastic, Shine Jesus Shine and more. After returning and sharing with others what a great time and how wonderful to sing those modern songs and worship the Lord. It was suggested to raise the point with the vicar, understandably, trying to hold the traditional sheep in harmony with the evangelical sheep was not easy, and he fobbed me off. Weeks later I raised the situation again, I suggested a vote be put to the members to have 'a service' with Shine Jesus Shine and other modern songs. He reluctantly agreed, prayers continued, the vote was prepared by a note on everyone's seat, not for or against but which are your favourite songs or hymns. Shine Jesus Shine got the most votes! Was there a service with the songs chosen, no. Because the choir leader and choir chose not.

I often wonder why I stayed there seven years, but that was where God wanted me at the time and I was not alone in that situation.

Now coming back to the reply, one of the issues that really got me was the creed, every Sunday I would say the creed with others, but I would always miss a few verses out.

They included that they believed... 'I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church'. I could not say I believed in the holy catholic church.

Now the friend I went to London with, to March for Jesus, is still a dear brother and friend even today. He goes to an evangelical place of worship, a very lively and active group. He wants me to go to 'his church'. I do not like to hear that at all, none of us have a my church, there is only one church, the ekklesia, the Body of Christ. He asked me to watch a service on YouTube which I said I would and I did. Picking up although they are evangelical they include the common CofE creed which includes 'I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church'. I just cannot say that because I do not agree with the catholic church errors.

There has been a lot of prayer and there needs to be a lot more, my dear brother shared in the men's group and it was taken to the vicar, first it came back that the term, holy catholic, is a universal name, for a universal church. I still couldn't agree, I also did not feel it right to say holy catholic before apostolic church, typical catholic I felt, putting themselves first as always, as we know he who is first...

A point I want to share here is, the CofE calls itself protestant, yet it is still holding ties to the RCC, the CofE is more or less left to follow the Spirit regarding how they worship, hence there are what are classed as High churches, which follow very closely the catholic methods, then there are the intermediates and finally the evangelical which are growing in many areas, PTL. There was one place of worship in the north west of England were I used to live, it's board outside says 'We are Church of England with Catholic services'. What a mix.

It would seem, that the CofE was undecided after the reformation and kept their feet in both camps, to me the CofE even today has leadership which is undecided, it was the same with women priest, it was the same with LGBTQ, homosexual clergy.

The church today is in such a mess, only the Lord knows who are His, and those who are His are the church, the ekklesia, the Body of Christ, preparing itself for the big day, to be the Bride of Christ when her beloved Groom appears.

 

[Brother-Paul]

I dont think i would place Luther in such a hero worship light, as he was no angel either, infact he was very promiscuous and involved in all manner of the flesh after removing himself as a priest. ( did you know he was an ordained priest?)

As for errors, there are plenty on both sides.

I so agree, some are mentioned in my last thread.

But, it is only the catholic church, the RCC, that states it has divine authority to change scripture!!!

THEY SAY, which is not by the authority of God, or in The Word, that papacy insists that it has the authority to change God’s laws

Artical 30 of the Prompta Bibliotheca, Volume 7, clause 30, states;
The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even Divine Laws!

And have changed the 10 Commandments as stated in Post #42

And have suggested even changing the Lord's Prayer, which I think they may have already done in the vatican.

There are faults and errors Bill, and there are changes to scripture which are totally against The Word of God.

Not one dot or tittle is to be changed, scripture makes that clear. It doesn't say except this person or that person, or a person claiming they have 'power and authority' they don't.

Shalom

 

[Brother-Paul]

I hate to tell you this, but the one world church has already begun building itself up.

And the 3rd Temple is prepared ready to be built.

God is in control, he will open the door to when and where the Temple will be built, the important part to note is everything is ready.

Time is shorter than many realise.

Shalom

 

[Brother-Paul]

The title of Pope, the head of the RCC?

The title pope, did not come from the pages of the Bible.

Tertullian, in the early part of the third century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to originally apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Pope Callixtus I (who had authority over the church from 217 to 222) whom he felt was exercising to much unilateral power in the church.

Where did Tertullian which became the title of Pope?
- Did it come from a lengthy doctrinal analysis of Scripture?
- Was it related, at all, to the apostle Peter's status in the early church?


One of the foundational dogmas of the RCC is that, the current Pope, is part of an unbroken chain, and have received their authority to rule the church directly from the apostle Peter.

Nineteen years after the death of Jesus, 49 A.D., the early church was in turmoil. An all-out doctrinal war erupted between those who firmly believed that a person must be circumcised before they can be saved and those who felt the ritual had no bearing on a person's salvation. The discussions in the churches got heated, it was decided that the matter needed to be settled, once and for all, through a gathering of church elders and brethren in Jerusalem.

This gathering (known as the Jerusalem conference, Acts 15), included Jesus' original apostles (Peter, John, etc.), was also attended by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, Titus, and many others (see Galatians 2).

If ever there was a time for Peter to assert his authority over the church and to let everyone know 'who is the boss' it was now.
The first century church would never again gather in the way it did in 49 A.D., with all the well-known church leaders in attendance.

After heated debates regarding the circumcision issue, and testimony from Paul, Barnabas and Peter regarding what God had done through them toward the Gentiles, a decision is arrived at.

Was it Peter that announced to the church, from a position of spiritual authority, what the church would now teach regarding the circumcision question? NO!

It was JAMES, one of the other apostles, who not only renders a final decision the assembled church agrees it, but who also writes a letter summarizing the decision to be read in the churches (Acts 15:13 - 32)!.

The RCC claimed line is RCC created for themselves, NOT from scripture as most people know, but catholic's won't accept

If the early church never used the exalted title of Pope for Peter, or even recognized that HE was the final authority on all church matters, where did it come from?

Read on...

The origin of the title of Pope for the head of the Catholic Church is much older than even the first century church.

In ancient Rome, the term Pontifex Maximus was used well before 254 B.C. for the highest position within the Roman Republic's PAGAN religion.

Over the years the position became highly politicized until, beginning with the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.), it became one of the many Imperial titles.

Today, according to the Catholic Church, the title Pontifex Maximus is the most noteworthy one used for the Pope. It is considered the distinctive mark of honour bestowed on the Bishop of Rome as head of the church worldwide.

Catholics officially and readily admit that the title of Pope bestowed on its most powerful leader came directly from paganism.

"As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome" (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope).

Taken from
Where did the Pope get his title?
www.biblestudy.org

Shalom

 

[Hekuran]

It is definitely true in some churches here. It's also definitely true Vicar means proxy or substitute.

Definition of VICAR

an ecclesiastical agent: such as; a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish; a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The orginal concept (14c, so well before the Protestant reformation) was that the vicar is a 'representative of Christ', or has delegated authority from Christ. Very few people today would be aware of the history of the word. In practical usage today it means 'an ordained minister of the church'.

Maybe you can find a weird church somewhere in the worldwide Anglican communion where a vicar is considered a substitute for Christ - but to talk as if this is commonplace or acceptable within the Anglican church is simply to misrepresent the facts.

 

[Bill]

I can honestly say that I've never really been into the politics of the Protestants or the Catholics. And I never would have guessed in this day in age that you all hold onto it so strongly. Things that happened so long ago still effect us here.

To me it goes along the same line has being prejudiced two people of different color. I thank God that my dad never saw color.

I guess what I think about, is in seeing all of this animosity of Catholics to Protestants and Protestants to Catholics. What will you do now to fix it. Will we be Christians and find a way to forgive our brothers and sisters and a fix the golf that is between us. Or will we continue to judge them and in turn judge ourselves before God

 

[Brother-Paul]

I can honestly say that I've never really been into the politics of the Protestants or the Catholics. And I never would have guessed in this day in age that you all hold onto it so strongly. Things that happened so long ago still effect us here.

To me it goes along the same line has being prejudiced two people of different color. I thank God that my dad never saw color.

I guess what I think about, is in seeing all of this animosity of Catholics to Protestants and Protestants to Catholics. What will you do now to fix it. Will we be Christians and find a way to forgive our brothers and sisters and a fix the golf that is between us. Or will we continue to judge them and in turn judge ourselves before God

Taking the end of your first sentence fist Bill if I may...

I never would have guessed in this day in age that you all hold onto it so strongly. Things that happened so long ago still effect us here.

Was Christ not on earth 2000 years ago?

Things that happened in the past are so important, especially when it involves, Jesus Christ, his church, and how some have treated it to their own ends. With best intentions I am sure but, things that affect The Word, our Lord's Church, are of prime importance to be left correct, not interfered with. Not one dot or tittle changed. Do you not agree?

The issue Bill is not denomination, the issue is a group who claim to follow Christ and The Word, doing exactly the opposite.

Regarding looking back, it is something I maintain always we should do, if we don't look back we won't see the errors, but when I say look back it is not usually meant to look for RCC errors. no, no, it is to look back at the early church, the first few hundred years, how the church was then, before Constantine, before RCC involvement.

Shalom

 

[B-A-C]

The issue Bill is not denomination, the issue is a group who claim to follow Christ and The Word, doing exactly the opposite.

2Cor 6:14; Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Cor 6:15; Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
2Cor 6:16; Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Cor 6:17; "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Cor 6:18; "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

 

[B-A-C]

Maybe you can find a weird church somewhere in the worldwide Anglican communion where a vicar is considered a substitute for Christ - but to talk as if this is commonplace or acceptable within the Anglican church is simply to misrepresent the facts.

I've been in several. I was married in an Episcopal church (divorced afterwards) But to tell the truth, I would expect no other answer from someone of that persuasion.

 

[Hekuran]

I've been in several. I was married in an Episcopal church (divorced afterwards) But to tell the truth, I would expect no other answer from someone of that persuasion.

Of what persuasion? I don't know who or what you are referring to here. I've been associated with the Church of England all my life. I know its faults and beauty very well. What you have said about it is wrong.

Please don't get stubborn and make yourself look like a liar just because you'd rather not admit that what you said is false. Or if you can show that what you've said about the church is correct, please demonstrate it.

 

[Brother-Paul]

I am sure you are both correct with your own experiences brothers.

The Church of England varies immensely, from what is called high, close to catholic, to what is called happy clappy evangelical.

The CofE I went to over 23 years ago when it was 'new', purpose built in the area, has changed also. I was watching services on YouTube over the last two months, the creed has changed taking away the holy catholic wording, PTL. The choir and leader has gone they now have a music group and piano. They also sang Shine Jesus Shine one Sunday and from home I took part, not just in the song. Nothing is impossible for God, the Spirit will change a fellowship of believers if their hearts allow it.

PTL to God be the Glory

Jesus is Lord.

Shalom

 

[B-A-C]

I am sure you are both correct with your own experiences brothers.

Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a very liberal denomination from everything I've experienced and read. Including their own website.

Church of England publishes major teaching resource on identity and sexuality

The Church of England has published a series of Christian teaching resources on identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.

www.anglicannews.org

 

[Brother-Paul]

Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a very liberal denomination from everything I've experienced and read. Including their own website.

Church of England publishes major teaching resource on identity and sexuality

The Church of England has published a series of Christian teaching resources on identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.

www.anglicannews.org

I cannot disagree brother, although there are some CofE places being blessed and being guided by the Holy Spirit, I added the following earlier...

A point I want to share here is, the CofE calls itself protestant, yet it is still holding ties to the RCC, the CofE is more or less left to follow the Spirit regarding how they worship, hence there are what are classed as High churches, which follow very closely the catholic methods, then there are the intermediates and finally the evangelical which are growing in many areas, PTL. There was one place of worship in the north west of England were I used to live, it's board outside says 'We are Church of England with Catholic services'. What a mix.

It would seem, that the CofE was undecided after the reformation and kept their feet in both camps, to me the CofE even today has leadership which is undecided, it was the same with women priest, it was the same with LGBTQ, homosexual clergy.

The church today is in such a mess, only the Lord knows who are His, and those who are His are the church, the ekklesia, the Body of Christ, preparing itself for the big day, to be the Bride of Christ when her beloved Groom appears.

The issues I believe B-A-C, are from the top down, they are still waiting on the Spirit, but God is waiting for change, and it is not happening, leaving the leaders in a no mans land, or better put, 'I am going to make a decision I think'.

The Arch Bishop is worried and understandably so, there are to many homosexuals in the establishment, that he doesn't know which way to turn, so makes no decision, which is the worst decision. He is more concerned with the flesh than dealing with the church according to scripture. It is sad.

It was not that long ago, the CofE was going to purchase Wonga, for £400 million, they said at the time it was so the could help those being ripped off by high interest rates. I don't believe it for a minute it seemed a lucrative investment. Anyone with half a brain could see, the high interest rates were due to such short term loans with high legal cost due to unpaid debts, they would have to keep high interest rates to cover these cost or go for longer term loans, long term loans wouldn't work it was a different business model, it was an investment with a lucrative return. As it happens it didn't go ahead, but what it did highlight is with money and assets they had over £400 million of congregations giving to God, yet if a place of worship needed a new roof, vicars were to beg for money from the members of their fellowship, have bring and buy sales, anything except money coming back down to where it was originally given.

I find it very sad, hence the reason I have not been part of a denomination in over 20 years, my learning comes from scripture, prayer, daily study using my large library of pastors books, commentaries, dictionaries, etc, etc.

Am I therefore part of the church, Yes I am, not a denomination, but I am part of the Body of Christ, the ekklesia, the one true church, which our Lord is Head of.

Shalom

 

[Hekuran]

Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a very liberal denomination from everything I've experienced and read. Including their own website.

Church of England publishes major teaching resource on identity and sexuality

The Church of England has published a series of Christian teaching resources on identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage.

www.anglicannews.org

There are parts of the CofE that are liberal, but the CofE is a very broad denomination, with every shade of theology represented - Reformed, Anglocatholic, liberal, and conservative.

Having said that, there is no part of the Church of England that considers a vicar a substitute Jesus.