(RELATIVELY) SHORT FOLLOW UP ON STUFF
In line with recent entries, I wanted to give a few references for those who expressed interest:
The following is the British-based survey that - for me at least- seems to capture my actual political ideology than *any* of the U.S. based tests I've found on line. Give it a try.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/profeedback.html
For those who expressed interest in the Apostolic Succession issue, here's some stuff and one quote which illuminates, but which I disclaim in terms of my perspective:
http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/EARLYFAITHHEALERS.html
" In Christian tradition, however, the laying on of hands is principally for the purpose of administering the sacraments of orders, confirmation, and the anointing of the sick, and these are the true channels of graces both ordinary and extraordinary. The words of Our Lord, enjoining the laying on of hands for the healing of sickness, are directed to the Apostles and their immediate collaborators, the presbyters, and this is borne out in the epistle of St. James, chapter five. It is clearly the presbyters of the Church who are to lay hands on the sick and anoint them with oil, not some spurious "anointee." No one but a validly ordained priest or bishop may impose his hands in a sacramental manner, and the laying on of hands is never attributed magical properties in either the New Testament or the early Fathers:
"Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for "no one taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God." For such sacred offices are onferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. But a person to whom such an office is not committed, but he seizes upon it for himself, he shall undergo the punishment of Uzziah. (The Apostolic Constitutions, bk III, ch. 10, 4th century a.d.)"
Also see http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Catholic
The following is the British-based survey that - for me at least- seems to capture my actual political ideology than *any* of the U.S. based tests I've found on line. Give it a try.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/profeedback.html
For those who expressed interest in the Apostolic Succession issue, here's some stuff and one quote which illuminates, but which I disclaim in terms of my perspective:
http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/EARLYFAITHHEALERS.html
" In Christian tradition, however, the laying on of hands is principally for the purpose of administering the sacraments of orders, confirmation, and the anointing of the sick, and these are the true channels of graces both ordinary and extraordinary. The words of Our Lord, enjoining the laying on of hands for the healing of sickness, are directed to the Apostles and their immediate collaborators, the presbyters, and this is borne out in the epistle of St. James, chapter five. It is clearly the presbyters of the Church who are to lay hands on the sick and anoint them with oil, not some spurious "anointee." No one but a validly ordained priest or bishop may impose his hands in a sacramental manner, and the laying on of hands is never attributed magical properties in either the New Testament or the early Fathers:
"Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for "no one taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God." For such sacred offices are onferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. But a person to whom such an office is not committed, but he seizes upon it for himself, he shall undergo the punishment of Uzziah. (The Apostolic Constitutions, bk III, ch. 10, 4th century a.d.)"
Also see http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Catholic