'Catholic' confession good for the soul: Archbishop of Canterbury
Talk Christianity
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1John5918
'Catholic' confession is good for the soul - says Archbishop of Canterbury (Telegraph)
With regard to a conversation that comes up from time to time on LT as to whether Anglicans are "protestant" or "catholic", it's interesting that Welby, despite being from the evangelical "low church" wing of Anglicanism, spoke of "being part of a wider 'catholic tradition'”.
The Torygraph also has a piece on Welby's conversion: Archbishop Justin Welby: 'I was embarrassed. It was like getting measles'
With regard to a conversation that comes up from time to time on LT as to whether Anglicans are "protestant" or "catholic", it's interesting that Welby, despite being from the evangelical "low church" wing of Anglicanism, spoke of "being part of a wider 'catholic tradition'”.
The Torygraph also has a piece on Welby's conversion: Archbishop Justin Welby: 'I was embarrassed. It was like getting measles'
2cl1914p
"Catholic" I often wonder why Catholics in their prayers continually asking for the dead to prayer for them; and yet the Holy Bible says that the dead knoweth nothing. It doesn't seemed right to me at all, doesn't anyone know the reason why they do that?
3Arctic-Stranger
Are you saying there is no life after death? Are you saying the author of Hebrews is wrong, and that there is no cloud of witnesses? I thought you believed in the Bible.
4JGL53
^
The one believes the other is a heretic and the second returns the favor.
lol.
The only way this debate makes sense is that all is Brahman.
Yeah - that's the ticket.
The one believes the other is a heretic and the second returns the favor.
lol.
The only way this debate makes sense is that all is Brahman.
Yeah - that's the ticket.
5jbbarret
>1 John5918::
In that article Welby agrees that he speaks gobbledegook, utterances totally unintelligible to anyone else, but having deep spiritual meaning to himself.
At least he's attempting to keep up the comic traditions of his post.
In that article Welby agrees that he speaks gobbledegook, utterances totally unintelligible to anyone else, but having deep spiritual meaning to himself.
At least he's attempting to keep up the comic traditions of his post.
6John5918
>5 jbbarret: he speaks gobbledegook, utterances totally unintelligible to anyone else, but having deep spiritual meaning to himself
Well, to himself and perhaps a couple of billion other Christians, to say nothing of quite a few members of other faiths who may not agree with him exactly but may recognise some of what he is saying. But this is the Christianity group, so perhaps some of what is on it may appear as gobbledegook to those who are not Christians nor religious.
Well, to himself and perhaps a couple of billion other Christians, to say nothing of quite a few members of other faiths who may not agree with him exactly but may recognise some of what he is saying. But this is the Christianity group, so perhaps some of what is on it may appear as gobbledegook to those who are not Christians nor religious.
7jbbarret
When anyone goes in for that kind of gibberish of which he speaks, has there ever been any evidence that anyone else has understood a word of it?
I agree that they might recognise word-like sounds, but that's hardly communication, is it?
I agree that they might recognise word-like sounds, but that's hardly communication, is it?
8JGL53
From the article:
"He acknowledged that he had his own personal struggles, remarking: 'I’m an Archbishop; I know about the absence of humility. I struggle with it.'”
Guy sounds like a dick to me.
But JTF admires him.
OK then.
"He acknowledged that he had his own personal struggles, remarking: 'I’m an Archbishop; I know about the absence of humility. I struggle with it.'”
Guy sounds like a dick to me.
But JTF admires him.
OK then.
9jbbarret
>6 John5918:: A couple of billion recognise what he is up to? I agree that I have met a few (very few) who claim that knowledge, but they do seem to be rare among Christians.
Welby is known to have been influenced by Nicky Gumbel of HTB (of which a previous Archbish of C said that it was a danger to the church). And Gumbel has been influenced by Toronto Airport Church, and various other tricksters, some of whom he has since broken with. I suggest that these are a small minority of Christians.
Welby is known to have been influenced by Nicky Gumbel of HTB (of which a previous Archbish of C said that it was a danger to the church). And Gumbel has been influenced by Toronto Airport Church, and various other tricksters, some of whom he has since broken with. I suggest that these are a small minority of Christians.
10jbbarret
In the article reference in #1, Welby says "you choose to speak and you speak a language that you don’t know. It just comes". Well, it seems that no one else knows that language either.
A basic concept of language is that it is a means of communication. If no one understands what is being said then no communication is taking place. It's just gibberish.
This chap makes more sense, much more, : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nI_3VBEtA
A basic concept of language is that it is a means of communication. If no one understands what is being said then no communication is taking place. It's just gibberish.
This chap makes more sense, much more, : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nI_3VBEtA
11jbbarret
: >6 John5918: Even the gibberish website ( http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/ ) only claims to have 100 million adherents. Funnily, it goes on to claim that that is 20% of all Christians. By their arithmetic that would mean there are 500 million Christians. By my arithmetic, if their claim of 100 million is correct, 5% of Christians engage in this practice.
12jbbarret
It's clear that Welby is trying to indicate that he accepts a little bit of this, and a little bit of that. Trying to please as many as possible.
In http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=18492 the comment states that speaking in tongues is a Protestant practice.
Can't imagine Father Ted going in for that now, can you? Dougal, perhaps.
In http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=18492 the comment states that speaking in tongues is a Protestant practice.
Can't imagine Father Ted going in for that now, can you? Dougal, perhaps.
13eclecticdodo
There are two separate things referred to as "speaking in tongues". The first is that mentioned in the new testament when the apostles were given the gift of speaking in other languages to spread the good news. The second is a very personal thing some Christians do to utter the thoughts of their hearts that they can't put into words.
14jbbarret
But Welby puts it as, "you speak a language that you don’t know", and as he is not claiming to be spreading any news by this method, nor is he admitting that he can't put his thoughts into words, his statement continues to be meaningless.
15timspalding
It's off-topic but…
"Catholic" I often wonder why Catholics in their prayers continually asking for the dead to prayer for them; and yet the Holy Bible says that the dead knoweth nothing. It doesn't seemed right to me at all, doesn't anyone know the reason why they do that?
The Bible specifically mentions praying for the dead ( 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 ). You don't think it does because Luther cut those books out. As for the dead knowing nothing, is one to presume that when Jesus says "Truly, I tell you that you will be with me in paradise today" he means "You'll be with me today, but you'll be dead"? ( Luke 23:43 )
"Catholic" I often wonder why Catholics in their prayers continually asking for the dead to prayer for them; and yet the Holy Bible says that the dead knoweth nothing. It doesn't seemed right to me at all, doesn't anyone know the reason why they do that?
The Bible specifically mentions praying for the dead ( 2 Maccabees 12:40-46 ). You don't think it does because Luther cut those books out. As for the dead knowing nothing, is one to presume that when Jesus says "Truly, I tell you that you will be with me in paradise today" he means "You'll be with me today, but you'll be dead"? ( Luke 23:43 )
16John5918
>2 cl1914p:, 3, 15 I had always thought that most Christians believe that some people go to heaven. It's not unreasonable to suppose that they don't stop praying once they get there; indeed in the direct presence of God they'll probably pray even more.
17John5918
>5 jbbarret:, 6 gobbledegook
jbbarret, I've belatedly realised that I misunderstood your reference to gobbledegook. I thought you were referring in a derogatory manner to the general talk of Christianity by the archbishop in those two articles, whereas you were in fact referring to his small passing reference to speaking in tongues. My apologies for that confusion. Christians would indeed understand most of what he says in those articles, but obviously would not understand him if he were speaking in tongues. However they probably would recognise a reference to private spiritual practices.
jbbarret, I've belatedly realised that I misunderstood your reference to gobbledegook. I thought you were referring in a derogatory manner to the general talk of Christianity by the archbishop in those two articles, whereas you were in fact referring to his small passing reference to speaking in tongues. My apologies for that confusion. Christians would indeed understand most of what he says in those articles, but obviously would not understand him if he were speaking in tongues. However they probably would recognise a reference to private spiritual practices.
18jbbarret
Certainly private spiritual practices of private individuals are no concern of mine, but this is a discussion of an article printed in a national newspaper (not, e.g., the Church Times) about a public person in a public position, a senior member of the establishment, not just a church position but one which is legally tied to the affairs of state. He is an octogenarian's heartbeat away from hearing the oath of allegiance from the next head of state on behalf of the creator of the universe. Every aspect of his beliefs, opinions, and actions however small, must be open to public scrutiny and criticism, warts and all.
19JGL53
> 18
In the U.S. our scandal along this line is that a person who belongs to a speaking-in-tongues church and who believes in the real power of witchcraft and Satanism was in the finals of the contest for the job of "one heartbeat away from being POTUS". Luckily the American people dodged that particular bullet.
In the U.S. our scandal along this line is that a person who belongs to a speaking-in-tongues church and who believes in the real power of witchcraft and Satanism was in the finals of the contest for the job of "one heartbeat away from being POTUS". Luckily the American people dodged that particular bullet.
20jburlinson
> 7. I agree that they might recognise word-like sounds, but that's hardly communication, is it?
It's interesting that in the article, the interviewer introduces the topic as follows:
"I ask him whether he can speak “in tongues” – the “charismatic” spiritual gift recorded in the New Testament. Oh yes, he says, almost as if he had been asked if he plays tennis, “It’s just a routine part of spiritual discipline – you choose to speak and you speak a language that you don’t know. It just comes. Bramble! Go and find {Peter the Welbys’ second son, one of five living children, and brother of Johanna, who died in a car crash as a baby}, you idiot!” "
That last utterance (starting with the word "Bramble") might appear to be meaningless, but I thought I understood it, as it seemed to me that the Archbishop was offering an example of speaking gibberish. It was only when the interviewer explained that Bramble was a dog (who was presumably making a nuisance of itself) that I realized that I was wrong.
Or was I? Isn't speaking English to a dog an instance of speaking gibberish? Perhaps the Archbishop was implying that, to the dog, his words would be gobbledygook, but to the interviewer, they made perfect sense. (Similarly, to the reader, it sounds like nonsense, until an explanation is provided.) When speaking in tongues, it might sound like gibberish to the average person, but presumably God would understand.
The irony is that it's entirely possible that the dog did understand the Archbishop, at least well enough to realize that its presence was not appreciated, and it might be a good idea to make itself scarce. Sadly, the interviewer doesn't tell us what the dog did. Not that it matters all that much, since, in my experience, dogs don't always do what you want, even when they understand perfectly what that is. Perhaps the Archbishop's little illustration would have been more apt if he had been talking to a cat.
edited to eliminate unintended touchstone, which would have been gobbledygook to most people
It's interesting that in the article, the interviewer introduces the topic as follows:
"I ask him whether he can speak “in tongues” – the “charismatic” spiritual gift recorded in the New Testament. Oh yes, he says, almost as if he had been asked if he plays tennis, “It’s just a routine part of spiritual discipline – you choose to speak and you speak a language that you don’t know. It just comes. Bramble! Go and find {Peter the Welbys’ second son, one of five living children, and brother of Johanna, who died in a car crash as a baby}, you idiot!” "
That last utterance (starting with the word "Bramble") might appear to be meaningless, but I thought I understood it, as it seemed to me that the Archbishop was offering an example of speaking gibberish. It was only when the interviewer explained that Bramble was a dog (who was presumably making a nuisance of itself) that I realized that I was wrong.
Or was I? Isn't speaking English to a dog an instance of speaking gibberish? Perhaps the Archbishop was implying that, to the dog, his words would be gobbledygook, but to the interviewer, they made perfect sense. (Similarly, to the reader, it sounds like nonsense, until an explanation is provided.) When speaking in tongues, it might sound like gibberish to the average person, but presumably God would understand.
The irony is that it's entirely possible that the dog did understand the Archbishop, at least well enough to realize that its presence was not appreciated, and it might be a good idea to make itself scarce. Sadly, the interviewer doesn't tell us what the dog did. Not that it matters all that much, since, in my experience, dogs don't always do what you want, even when they understand perfectly what that is. Perhaps the Archbishop's little illustration would have been more apt if he had been talking to a cat.
edited to eliminate unintended touchstone, which would have been gobbledygook to most people
21jbbarret
Talking to a god, same as talking to a dog. Yep, that makes sense. Always have talked to my god dog, because I always get a response. Understands every word I say. Stands to reason.
Funny thing is, he never tells me how to tell other people how to live their lives. Why do you think that is?
Funny thing is, he never tells me how to tell other people how to live their lives. Why do you think that is?
23jburlinson
> 21. Funny thing is, he never tells me how to tell other people how to live their lives.
My last dog was eager to tell people how to live their lives. As best as I could make out, her message invariably was something like: "Feed me, or get the hell out of my yard!" Which, if you think about it, isn't that far from the God of the OT.
My last dog was eager to tell people how to live their lives. As best as I could make out, her message invariably was something like: "Feed me, or get the hell out of my yard!" Which, if you think about it, isn't that far from the God of the OT.
24John5918
>21 jbbarret: Most of my dogs over the years have had a similar attitude to jburlinson's.
But leaving aside dogs, most of the people in my life with whom I have had positive relationships (parents, wife, family, friends, teachers, mentors) have tried to help me live my life. Why do you think that is? Why should the God with whom I have a relationship not do so?
But leaving aside dogs, most of the people in my life with whom I have had positive relationships (parents, wife, family, friends, teachers, mentors) have tried to help me live my life. Why do you think that is? Why should the God with whom I have a relationship not do so?
25cl1914p
Thanks to all who responded to my question.
I might’ve had it all wrong; if not, the King James Bible that I've been reading had it wrong! It’s written, all who are dead know nothing, can do nothing, for from the time that they've died all their thoughts perished; until the day resurrection. That is why I find it hard to understand how any one of them is capable to pray for us, and they not like Jesus, who had been resurrected. (Referring to: 3 and 15). Nonetheless, may you all live righteously before God, so that you will all be blessed.
I might’ve had it all wrong; if not, the King James Bible that I've been reading had it wrong! It’s written, all who are dead know nothing, can do nothing, for from the time that they've died all their thoughts perished; until the day resurrection. That is why I find it hard to understand how any one of them is capable to pray for us, and they not like Jesus, who had been resurrected. (Referring to: 3 and 15). Nonetheless, may you all live righteously before God, so that you will all be blessed.
26pmackey
>25 cl1914p:, I know where you're coming from because I was raised to believe the dead are dead and awaiting the Resurrection. I, too, had difficulty understanding why anyone would ask a saint to pray for/with us. Indeed, I saw it at the time as someone praying TO the saint, displacing God's primacy. The issue is twofold. First, the state of the dead. Second, asking the saints to pray with you.
State of the dead. The Bible isn't simply black and white on the issue. While the Bible is very clear on the Resurrection, Saint Paul indicates there may be something more. Philippians 1:21-23: "21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 Forc I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." NKJV from BibleGateway.com.
Because the Bible speaks of the Resurrection AND being with Christ after death, I believe that both are true. How? I don't know because it's a mystery. My view now is subjective based on my time and earthbound perspective. Ah, but all shall be clear when I look on the face of God. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.
Praying with the saints. This one is easier (I think). God exists beyond time and space. (Sorry, I tried looking up the verse in BibleGateway but my key words didn't get results. I'll try to recall the verse and provide references later). God is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. For God, the past, present and future are all "present". So, through God, believers throughout time and space are present to God. I don't pray to the saint, but ask those who have gone before to join me in prayer. When I'm having a hard time, I will ask my Christian brothers and sisters to remember me in their prayers, to join their prayers with mine. Asking a saint to intercede (which is prayer) for me is the same thing in my view.
God will sort it all out. Christians don't agree on every point. It's that dark glass we're looking through. One day, thank God, we'll see the Truth face to face.
State of the dead. The Bible isn't simply black and white on the issue. While the Bible is very clear on the Resurrection, Saint Paul indicates there may be something more. Philippians 1:21-23: "21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 Forc I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." NKJV from BibleGateway.com.
Because the Bible speaks of the Resurrection AND being with Christ after death, I believe that both are true. How? I don't know because it's a mystery. My view now is subjective based on my time and earthbound perspective. Ah, but all shall be clear when I look on the face of God. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.
Praying with the saints. This one is easier (I think). God exists beyond time and space. (Sorry, I tried looking up the verse in BibleGateway but my key words didn't get results. I'll try to recall the verse and provide references later). God is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. For God, the past, present and future are all "present". So, through God, believers throughout time and space are present to God. I don't pray to the saint, but ask those who have gone before to join me in prayer. When I'm having a hard time, I will ask my Christian brothers and sisters to remember me in their prayers, to join their prayers with mine. Asking a saint to intercede (which is prayer) for me is the same thing in my view.
God will sort it all out. Christians don't agree on every point. It's that dark glass we're looking through. One day, thank God, we'll see the Truth face to face.
27John5918
>26 pmackey: So, through God, believers throughout time and space are present to God. I don't pray to the saint, but ask those who have gone before to join me in prayer. When I'm having a hard time, I will ask my Christian brothers and sisters to remember me in their prayers, to join their prayers with mine. Asking a saint to intercede (which is prayer) for me is the same thing in my view.
Thanks. Well put.
Thanks. Well put.
28eclecticdodo
>26 pmackey:, 27
That makes sense (though I'm not convinced). What I don't understand is why ask a saint (in the strict RC meaning of the word) to intercede and not just any saint (in the broader biblical meaning of any Christian). If it's about asking brothers and sisters to join you in prayer, why not ask your great aunt or whoever?
That makes sense (though I'm not convinced). What I don't understand is why ask a saint (in the strict RC meaning of the word) to intercede and not just any saint (in the broader biblical meaning of any Christian). If it's about asking brothers and sisters to join you in prayer, why not ask your great aunt or whoever?
29John5918
>28 eclecticdodo: why not ask your great aunt or whoever?
Why not indeed? As far as I know, that's what people do - "saints" is broader than those who have been canonised by the Church. But those official saints are particularly strong public examples pour encourager les autres. Incidentally the African sense of community with ancestors fits very well with this part of Catholic (and I would suggest broader but not universal Christian) teaching.
Why not indeed? As far as I know, that's what people do - "saints" is broader than those who have been canonised by the Church. But those official saints are particularly strong public examples pour encourager les autres. Incidentally the African sense of community with ancestors fits very well with this part of Catholic (and I would suggest broader but not universal Christian) teaching.
30pmackey
>28 eclecticdodo:, there are Saints and saints, and all of them together are saints. So, as JTF in 29 says, there's no reason at all not to ask your great aunt or whomever, to join with you in prayer.
I don't frequently ask for saints' intercession. Most notably, when my mother was in a Catholic hospital and needed surgery, I went to the chapel to pray (by far the nicest hospital chapel I've seen). The chapel was for Saint Mary and Saint Joseph, and I did ask for their intersession -- again to pray with me -- and was very much comforted. I did so not to try to twist Jesus' arm, because that's ridiculous, but from the viewpoint where Jesus said if two or three are gathered in my name, I will answer.
After that, my mom needed another surgery the next day. I called a church friend and asked them to pray, and to have the church pray for her, too.
Jesus did hear our prayers for which I'm forever grateful.
I don't frequently ask for saints' intercession. Most notably, when my mother was in a Catholic hospital and needed surgery, I went to the chapel to pray (by far the nicest hospital chapel I've seen). The chapel was for Saint Mary and Saint Joseph, and I did ask for their intersession -- again to pray with me -- and was very much comforted. I did so not to try to twist Jesus' arm, because that's ridiculous, but from the viewpoint where Jesus said if two or three are gathered in my name, I will answer.
After that, my mom needed another surgery the next day. I called a church friend and asked them to pray, and to have the church pray for her, too.
Jesus did hear our prayers for which I'm forever grateful.
31cl1914p
Well, I will say this: Whatever is good, whatever is righteous, and whatever pleases the Lord and will make others happy, it’s quite alright with me; for at the end of the day, it’s the motive for doing things that really counts! Our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ, He is very kind, merciful and He will forgive sins! Blessings to you all!
