info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mike's in trouble!
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Kendall K. Down
Dec 2, 2021, 4:40:08 PM12/2/21
to
I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
"It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
other religions except their own are false."
Oh dear.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
"It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
other religions except their own are false."
Oh dear.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Stuart
Dec 2, 2021, 7:00:08 PM12/2/21
to
In article <sobe7q$93r$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."
> Oh dear.
Did you not know that already?
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."
> Oh dear.
--
Stuart Winsor
Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
Kendall K. Down
Dec 3, 2021, 2:50:05 AM12/3/21
to
On 02/12/2021 23:51, Stuart wrote:
>> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
>> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
>> other religions except their own are false."
>> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
>> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
>> other religions except their own are false."
> Did you not know that already?
To be honest, I'm come across the same attitude in many other churches -
SDA, Baptist, sundry charistmatic, JW (goes without saying), and others.
Mike Davis
Dec 4, 2021, 1:00:07 PM12/4/21
to
On 02/12/2021 21:35, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
>
> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."
I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
> I came across this gem in Cafferata this evening:
>
> "It is a sin for Catholics to attend other places of worship than their
> own for the purpose of worshipping God there, because they know that all
> other religions except their own are false."
Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.
Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
in my sent e-mails folder.)
I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
faith of the late Victorian era.
> Oh dear.
Oh dear, indeed!
My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
is aware of what I do. - Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
instructed me to stop!! ;-)
Blessings
Mike
--
Mike Davis
Kendall K. Down
Dec 4, 2021, 2:50:08 PM12/4/21
to
On 04/12/2021 17:57, Mike Davis wrote:
> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
I have Cafferata and Geirmann and have read both. Very useful when
> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
arguing with Protestants about the Sabbath!
> Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
> and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
> that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.
in the 1940s in a Catholic book shop in Australia as representing
Catholic teaching at the time). The views expressed regarding other
churches were, I believe, standard Catholic teaching at the time (and,
as I have mentioned in another post, were reciprocated by Protestants
regarding Catholics and each other).
> Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
> I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
> in my sent e-mails folder.)
> I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
> faith of the late Victorian era.
> My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
> is aware of what I do. - Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
> instructed me to stop!! ;-)
Adam Funk
Dec 4, 2021, 3:20:06 PM12/4/21
to
On 2021-12-04, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 17:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
>
> I have Cafferata and Geirmann and have read both. Very useful when
> arguing with Protestants about the Sabbath!
>
>> Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
>> and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
>> that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.
>
> They are indeed about that old (though both were purchased by my father
> in the 1940s in a Catholic book shop in Australia as representing
> Catholic teaching at the time). The views expressed regarding other
> churches were, I believe, standard Catholic teaching at the time (and,
> as I have mentioned in another post, were reciprocated by Protestants
> regarding Catholics and each other).
>
>> Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
>> I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
>> in my sent e-mails folder.)
>
> I don't recall it, but I always welcome messages from you.
>
>> I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
>> faith of the late Victorian era.
>
> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
> On 04/12/2021 17:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm *so* pleased that you are reading a Catholic Catechism, Kendall!
>
> I have Cafferata and Geirmann and have read both. Very useful when
> arguing with Protestants about the Sabbath!
>
>> Unfortunately the notes that you are reading are about 130 years old,
>> and take an extreme (and ignorant) view of other Christian churches. One
>> that has been significantly revised by Vatican II 50 years ago.
>
> They are indeed about that old (though both were purchased by my father
> in the 1940s in a Catholic book shop in Australia as representing
> Catholic teaching at the time). The views expressed regarding other
> churches were, I believe, standard Catholic teaching at the time (and,
> as I have mentioned in another post, were reciprocated by Protestants
> regarding Catholics and each other).
>
>> Did I write directly to you you recently about this gentleman? (Because
>> I can find no record of my response to you in either my ukrc files nor
>> in my sent e-mails folder.)
>
> I don't recall it, but I always welcome messages from you.
>
>> I suggested that (Saint) J H Newman would be a better guide to Catholic
>> faith of the late Victorian era.
>
> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
:-P
>> My ecumenical work has been specifically directed by God, and my Bishop
>> is aware of what I do. - Or at least, I've told him and he hasn't
>> instructed me to stop!! ;-)
>
> The subject line was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
>
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
--- Mark Twain
Kendall K. Down
Dec 5, 2021, 3:40:08 AM12/5/21
to
On 04/12/2021 20:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
> :-P
The definition I had in mind is "someone who engages in debate".
>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
> :-P
Mike Davis
Dec 5, 2021, 6:40:07 AM12/5/21
to
On 05/12/2021 08:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 20:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
>
>> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
>> :-P
>
> The definition I had in mind is "someone who engages in debate".
Oh! I thought it was the opposite of a 'Universialist'!
> On 04/12/2021 20:03, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> Possibly - though less useful to a controversialist.
>
>> Aha, you're admitting to being a controversialist!
>> :-P
>
> The definition I had in mind is "someone who engages in debate".
Mike
--
Mike Davis
0 new messages