Apparently not. It was just a rumor.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=2074332
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Corpus Christi gay play at UNL
I heard about this on the KVSS morning show today. UNL is sponsoring a play called "Corpus Christi", which operates from the prospective that Christ and the Apostles were gay. Bruce and Kris were urging Catholics to protest the play and to contact the UNL Chancellor, Harvey Perlman, to express their displeasure.
Here is a link with some information: http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/corpus_christi_u_nebraska.htm
While I support the general idea of protesting the play, I have absolutely no belief that Perlman would ever stop the play's performance. I knew Perlman when he was dean of the law school. He views his political correctness as a key to acheiving his legacy, which is what he is all about.
Speaking of legacy, if you're one of the (millions? lol) of fans angry about the ouster of Solich and the hiring of Callahan, stop putting all the blame on Petersen, and look instead to the man who hired him, again in an attempt to secure a legacy. Perlman hired Petersen specifically because Perlman was looking to change the way Nebraska football is played.
Here is a link with some information: http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/corpus_christi_u_nebraska.htm
While I support the general idea of protesting the play, I have absolutely no belief that Perlman would ever stop the play's performance. I knew Perlman when he was dean of the law school. He views his political correctness as a key to acheiving his legacy, which is what he is all about.
Speaking of legacy, if you're one of the (millions? lol) of fans angry about the ouster of Solich and the hiring of Callahan, stop putting all the blame on Petersen, and look instead to the man who hired him, again in an attempt to secure a legacy. Perlman hired Petersen specifically because Perlman was looking to change the way Nebraska football is played.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Anglican Apologetics
The previous post is sort of a lead-in to this post.
So, on the subject of apologetics, I would like to know how the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defends its formation and continued existence. My previous understanding was that the Anglican Church was formed when King Henry VIII desired to divorce and remarry. The Roman Catholic Church told him he could not do that, so King Henry declared that a new church would be formed and subject to his authority. According to the Church of England's official website (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/), the split had more to do with a "Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy." The Anglican Domain, a website for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church around the world (www.anglican.org), states that a split between England and Rome had been coming for a long time.
"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the assertion of the Anglican Domain, the split was not like the split from the Orthodox church for one basic but extremely important reason: The Church of England declared that it was and is subject to the authority of the King and/or Queen, while the Orthodox Churches declared that they were subject to the authority of bishops of the Church. The Orthodox Church may have rejected the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, but they did so on the basis that, in their opinion, the Bishop of Rome was equal to, not greater than, the other major bishops of the time, e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople. The Church of England, on the other hand, declared that the supreme authority over it did not rest with a bishop, a priest, or anyone with holy orders of any sort, but a layman who just happened to rule a political entity.
So here is my question: What is the basis for believing that the authority of the Church of England properly rests with the King or Queen? What is the theological basis for believing that the leaders of the Church of England can and must be appointed by the government?
Please be aware that I do not write this as some sort of attack on the Anglican Church. I sincerely seek the answers to these questions. It is not enough to explain to other churches why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The only way that unification of all churches will ever succeed is if we first understand why all other Christian denominations believe in the authority of their churches.
So, on the subject of apologetics, I would like to know how the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defends its formation and continued existence. My previous understanding was that the Anglican Church was formed when King Henry VIII desired to divorce and remarry. The Roman Catholic Church told him he could not do that, so King Henry declared that a new church would be formed and subject to his authority. According to the Church of England's official website (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/), the split had more to do with a "Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy." The Anglican Domain, a website for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church around the world (www.anglican.org), states that a split between England and Rome had been coming for a long time.
"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the assertion of the Anglican Domain, the split was not like the split from the Orthodox church for one basic but extremely important reason: The Church of England declared that it was and is subject to the authority of the King and/or Queen, while the Orthodox Churches declared that they were subject to the authority of bishops of the Church. The Orthodox Church may have rejected the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, but they did so on the basis that, in their opinion, the Bishop of Rome was equal to, not greater than, the other major bishops of the time, e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople. The Church of England, on the other hand, declared that the supreme authority over it did not rest with a bishop, a priest, or anyone with holy orders of any sort, but a layman who just happened to rule a political entity.
So here is my question: What is the basis for believing that the authority of the Church of England properly rests with the King or Queen? What is the theological basis for believing that the leaders of the Church of England can and must be appointed by the government?
Please be aware that I do not write this as some sort of attack on the Anglican Church. I sincerely seek the answers to these questions. It is not enough to explain to other churches why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The only way that unification of all churches will ever succeed is if we first understand why all other Christian denominations believe in the authority of their churches.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Protestant Apologetics
For those who are unaware, the term "apologetics" refers to the act of defending one's point of view. In the case of religion, it refers to the defense of one's religion against those who challenge its truth or accuracy. I have been interested in apologetics for many years.
I have perused two types of apologetics materials: those materials which defend that Catholic faith against Protestant religions, and those which defend Christianity in general against athiests and non-Christian religions. I have also seen, though I have not read, Jewish apologetics materials. I have yet to see, however, any apologetics materials defending specific Protestant religions against the Catholic faith or other Protestant denominations.
In case you're wondering, I'm not trying to prove any part of Catholicism wrong. I have long since recognized that the Catholic Church is the original Church of Christ and the Lord's Kingdom on earth. However, I have never been satisfied with simply knowing my own arguments for my position. I always want to know what the other side's arguments are against my position so that I know how to counter such views.
To continue, there are hundreds of books and articles by various Protestant groups which make base criticisms against the Church. However, these don't seem to arise to the level which I would term apologetics. For example, Protestants continually assert that the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church of the first and second century, and that the early Church did not believe in a "real presence." This is easily refuted simply by reading the writings of the Church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch or Turtullian. One would think that Protestants would be well-prepared to address these writings. Yet I cannot seem to find material that reaches that level of discussion.
If anyone knows of any such books or articles to which you can refer me, I would be most appreciative.
I have perused two types of apologetics materials: those materials which defend that Catholic faith against Protestant religions, and those which defend Christianity in general against athiests and non-Christian religions. I have also seen, though I have not read, Jewish apologetics materials. I have yet to see, however, any apologetics materials defending specific Protestant religions against the Catholic faith or other Protestant denominations.
In case you're wondering, I'm not trying to prove any part of Catholicism wrong. I have long since recognized that the Catholic Church is the original Church of Christ and the Lord's Kingdom on earth. However, I have never been satisfied with simply knowing my own arguments for my position. I always want to know what the other side's arguments are against my position so that I know how to counter such views.
To continue, there are hundreds of books and articles by various Protestant groups which make base criticisms against the Church. However, these don't seem to arise to the level which I would term apologetics. For example, Protestants continually assert that the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church of the first and second century, and that the early Church did not believe in a "real presence." This is easily refuted simply by reading the writings of the Church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch or Turtullian. One would think that Protestants would be well-prepared to address these writings. Yet I cannot seem to find material that reaches that level of discussion.
If anyone knows of any such books or articles to which you can refer me, I would be most appreciative.
First Steps....
I've thought long and hard about this weblog. I have wanted to do this for months, but I never seemed to get around to it. Now that I've jumped in, I hope to post at least three times a week
The main purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and questions about the Church with other people in Omaha. I do not profess to be an expert on any topics by any means. I am just one Catholic who wishes I could be a better Christian. I hope that by updating this blog, I will be more mindful of my own sinfulness and shortcomings and be able to guard better against temptations. I also hope to increase my knowledge of the Church, and to share what little knowledge I do have with others.
If anyone has questions or comments or would like to explore a particular subject, please let me know.
The main purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and questions about the Church with other people in Omaha. I do not profess to be an expert on any topics by any means. I am just one Catholic who wishes I could be a better Christian. I hope that by updating this blog, I will be more mindful of my own sinfulness and shortcomings and be able to guard better against temptations. I also hope to increase my knowledge of the Church, and to share what little knowledge I do have with others.
If anyone has questions or comments or would like to explore a particular subject, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)