Anglican leaders prepare new drive to approve women bishops

[CopticChristian]

I think you set back ecumenical progress a 1000 years and don’t reflect actual Roman Catholic practice. Just the other day Pope Francis suggested that good atheists go to heaven.

The Papacy is not a person, it is an office…

nytimes.com/2008/12/22/world/europe/22iht-23pope.18872459.html?_r=0

Pope Benedict

The Church “should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed,” the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican’s central administration.

“The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.”

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality “a deviation, an irregularity, a wound.”

The pope said humanity needed to “listen to the language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as “a destruction of God’s work.”

He also defended the Church’s right to “speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected.”

Pope John Paul II

atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/homosexuality.htm

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-homosexual-unions

Pope Francis

He was absolutely adamant on the impermissibility of homosexual marriage, stating:

In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…

At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.

This is not simply a political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

Apparently, his discussion of civil unions occurred in a meeting among the Argentine bishops in which they were strategizing how to block homosexual marriage.
The others, apparently, voted against Cardinal Bergoglio’s suggestion, and it wasn’t acted on publicly.

Ecumenism is not about the Church conceding…from the USA Catechism for adults…

Second Vatican Council and led the Church to participate in what is called the ecumenical movement. The word ecumenical means “world¬wide” and, in a Catholic understanding, describes efforts “for the rec¬onciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ” (UR, no. 24; CCC, no. 822). This is to be a visible communion. “Full unity will come about when all share in the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church” (Pope John Paul II, On Commitment to Ecumenism [Ut Unum Sint; UUS], no. 86). “Communion of the par¬ticular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion” (UUS, no. 97). Ecumenism includes efforts to pray together, joint study of the Scripture and of one another’s traditions, common action for social justice, and dialogue in which the leaders and theologians of the different churches and communities discuss in depth their doctrinal and theological positions for greater mutual understand¬ing, and “to work for unity in truth” (UUS, nos. 18, 29).** In dialogue the obligation to respect the truth is absolute. “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety” **(UUS, no. 18). On the worldwide level, these dia¬logues are sponsored on the Catholic side by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, a Vatican office directly accountable to the Pope.

Welcome to the truth in Ecumenism…

 

[Casey123]

Whatever you call yourself, you are saying based on my experience and that is nothing more than empiricism. There is always contention with empiricism and rationalism and you need both to come to any conclusion.

You’re supposedly some sort of a scientist and you’re bashing empirical evidence, evidence that comes from direct observation? I also don’t think someone that’s, by his own admission, basing his beliefs almost entirely off of his own church’s teachings (as you say below) should be invoking rationalism in his argument, which by its nature, must take away emotional or religious thought in order to come to a conclusion.

Dismissing plainly observable evidence as well as claiming to embrace rationalism whilst simultaneously basing a good portion of one’s opinion on religious teaching = not at all a scientific way of thinking and quite a set of contradictions.

CopticChristian:

It isn’t true because it isn’t true. Show me anything that says I am wrong. I have read lots and I read lots and if you believe you have something to teach, then put it out there for everyone to read…and I will retract…

It isn’t true because it isn’t true? Seriously? That’s your argument? I would be more than happy to provide you with more information, if you’d like; although I have a sneaking suspicion that I’d be wasting my time as anything I have to say will simply be countered with a “that’s propaganda” or some other line because you don’t believe evidence is even evidence at all if you dislike what it leads to (I certainly hope you don’t serve on a jury any time soon!); you will likely never give yourself a chance to “retract” if you don’t give any thought to your opposition’s evidence. I can provide you with link after link if it pleases you that indactes your argument is wrong/flawed. What I am having a hard time finding, however, is evidence to suggest that you are, as you claim to be, 100% right and correct.

CopticChristian:

My beliefs come from the OHCAC, the USA Catechism for Adults USA, audio and hardback that is based on the Universal Catechism…you should listen to it…

So, you believe something is true because the Catholic Church says it’s true. Gotcha.
(But wait, I thought you were a “scientist” tearing apart evidence based on your own experience?! …which, by the way would be empirical evidence…)

CopticChristian:

Ask a direct question about my beliefs and I will provide you a direct answer

Oh, I’m good. I wanted to know where your beliefs came from. I found my answer.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You’re supposedly some sort of a scientist and you’re bashing empirical evidence, evidence that comes from direct observation? I also don’t think someone that’s, by his own admission, basing his beliefs almost entirely off of his own church’s teachings (as you say below) should be invoking rationalism in his argument, which by its nature, must take away emotional or religious thought in order to come to a conclusion.

Dismissing plainly observable evidence as well as claiming to embrace rationalism whilst simultaneously basing a good portion of one’s opinion on religious teaching = not at all a scientific way of thinking and quite a set of contradictions.

It isn’t true because it isn’t true? Seriously? That’s your argument? I would be more than happy to provide you with more information, if you’d like; although I have a sneaking suspicion that I’d be wasting my time as anything I have to say will simply be countered with a “that’s propaganda” or some other line because you don’t believe evidence is even evidence at all if you dislike what it leads to (I certainly hope you don’t serve on a jury any time soon!); you will likely never give yourself a chance to “retract” if you don’t give any thought to your opposition’s evidence. I can provide you with link after link if it pleases you that indactes your argument is wrong/flawed. What I am having a hard time finding, however, is evidence to suggest that you are, as you claim to be, 100% right and correct.

So, you believe something is true because the Catholic Church says it’s true. Gotcha.
(But wait, I thought you were a “scientist” tearing apart evidence based on your own experience?! …which, by the way would be empirical evidence…)

Oh, I’m good. I wanted to know where your beliefs came from. I found my answer.

 

[Casey123]

Welcome to the truth in Ecumenism…

So, true or false, Ecumenical Christian unity, as you define it in your post (which wouldn’t copy/paste well, so I edited it out of the quote box, apologies), means that Rome concedes nothing, and we all have to conform to Rome’s banner, standards, and teachings, and this is the only way to achieve Christian unity?

 

[CopticChristian]

So, you believe something is true because the Catholic Church says it’s true. Gotcha.
(But wait, I thought you were a “scientist” tearing apart evidence based on your own experience?! …which, by the way would be empirical evidence…)

Oh, I’m good. I wanted to know where your beliefs came from. I found my answer.

You’re supposedly some sort of a scientist and you’re bashing empirical evidence, evidence that comes from direct observation? I also don’t think someone that’s, by his own admission, basing his beliefs almost entirely off of his own church’s teachings (as you say below) should be invoking rationalism in his argument, which by its nature, must take away emotional or religious thought in order to come to a conclusion.

I am as you suppose. I am not bashing anything. In order to put empiricism into perspective I and you would have to have a conversation that I would rather not have on a public forum and more likely than not it would not be comfortable for you. Without full empirical revelation all we have is what you say you are and what is known rationally. It means this is an impasse.

Dismissing plainly observable evidence as well as claiming to embrace rationalism whilst simultaneously basing a good portion of one’s opinion on religious teaching = not at all a scientific way of thinking and quite a set of contradictions.

Essentialism=born that way=a fallacy, a lie, not true now or ever…

where is it you find that I have alluded to this as a religious belief…it would appear to me that this belief is more ingrained in your mind than the lack of proof that it is not true in my mind. You appear to have a vested interest in wanting to believe this and I can understand that however it does not make it any more true now or in the past. I have empathy for you.

It isn’t true because it isn’t true? Seriously? That’s your argument? I would be more than happy to provide you with more information, if you’d like; although I have a sneaking suspicion that I’d be wasting my time as anything I have to say will simply be countered with a “that’s propaganda” or another line that says because you don’t believe evidence is even evidence at all if you dislike what it leads to (I certainly hope you don’t serve on a jury any time soon!); you will likely never give yourself a chance to “retract” if you don’t give any thought to your opposition’s evidence. I can provide you with link after link if it pleases you that indactes your argument is wrong/flawed. What I am having a hard time finding, however, is evidence to suggest that you are, as you claim to be, 100% right and correct.

Humor an old man. Perhaps you have something to teach everyone. Perhaps you may learn something. Provide me 3 links and I will explain to you why they bear no truth and if I cannot then I will willingly acknowledge that you have found the Holy Grail of Homosexuality.

I am until proven wrong 100% correct. Wow, my reputation, my education, my beliefs, what I stand for, and the willingness to admit error…Wow what a target you now have. I wait.

 

[CopticChristian]

So, true or false, Ecumenical Christian unity, as you define it in your post (which wouldn’t copy/paste well, so I edited it out of the quote box, apologies), means that Rome concedes nothing, and we all have to conform to Rome’s banner, standards, and teachings, and this is the only way to achieve Christian unity?

In dialogue the obligation to respect the truth is absolute. “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety”

It is true that dialogue must respect the truth. In many and various ways God spoke in past time to His Prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His son…and all that He said is Jesus, who taught the Apostles, that aided in teaching through the Church, and that teaching continues and in the Catechism are revealed truths to be believed and to be adhered to in dialogue and when the truth is not respected or accepted then ecumenism fails…

It is true that revealed truths do not know the word concession nor can there be unity absent the truth.

 

[CopticChristian]

Birds of a feather it would appear to be…:hug1:

 

[Casey123]

It is true that dialogue must respect the truth. In many and various ways God spoke in past time to His Prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His son…and all that He said is Jesus, who taught the Apostles, that aided in teaching through the Church, and that teaching continues and in the Catechism are revealed truths to be believed and to be adhered to in dialogue and when the truth is not respected or accepted then ecumenism fails…

It is true that revealed truths do not know the word concession nor can there be unity absent the truth.

Which is the Oxford Debating Society’s way of saying: “We’ll have Christian unity when you all become Catholic. We concede nothing. We compromise on nothing. Your truth will become our truth. Dissent is irrelevant. Your culture will adapt to service ours. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”

How about “No.”

If that’s indeed the case, then no, Christian unity is not something I foresee ever happening, so long as this is the Catholic Church’s attitude. In fact, using the RCC’s definition of what Christian unity ought to be, the status quo is far preferable. It was asked in another thread by a Catholic about Anglicans/Episcopalians, as well as Lutherans, “Why are we in dialogue with these people?” That’s a very good question, and if Rome’s opinion of what Christian unity and full Communion is everyone surrendering unto them, then I have to ask the same question - why are we even in dialogue?

And yes, Coptic, I did catch your question. I will provide you with more than 3 links (likely tomorrow, as it’s pushing 2 am here), though I doubt it will cause you to retract anything. I think you’re greatly over estimating just how much I care about a faceless name on the internet.

 

[CopticChristian]

Which is the Oxford Debating Society’s way of saying: “We’ll have Christian unity when you all become Catholic. We concede nothing. We compromise on nothing. Your truth will become our truth. Dissent is irrelevant. Your culture will adapt to service ours. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”

If that’s indeed the case, then no, Christian unity is not something I foresee ever happening, so long as this is the Catholic Church’s attitude. In fact, using the RCC’s definition of what Christian unity ought to be, the status quo is far preferable. It was asked in another thread by a Catholic about Anglicans/Episcopalians, as well as Lutherans, “Why are we in dialogue with these people?” That’s a very good question, and if Rome’s opinion of what Christian unity and full Communion is everyone surrendering unto them, then I have to ask the same question - why are we even in dialogue?

And yes, Coptic, I did catch your question. I will provide you with more than 3 links (likely tomorrow, as it’s pushing 2 am here), though I doubt it will cause you to retract anything. I think you’re greatly over estimating just how much I care about a faceless name on the internet.

You shall be missed.

 

[jwinch2]

I think you set back ecumenical progress a 1000 years and don’t reflect actual Roman Catholic practice. Just the other day Pope Francis suggested that good atheists go to heaven.

Your understanding of Catholic doctrine and the intent of the Holy Father’s words is very much lacking. In addition, any ecumenical effort which is not based on truth is a complete and utter waste of time. For the record, the Holy Father was suggesting that atheists and Christians can find common ground in the doing of good works and that this will allow us to understand each other better and provide a basis for communication. That is all.

 

[Casey123]

You shall be missed.

You keep saying that with no context, and I fear that I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[CopticChristian]

You keep saying that with no context, and I fear that I have no idea what you mean by that.

Facts are facts.

It is like saying…

Essentialism=born that way=fallacy, fantasy, not now or ever been proven to be true, a lie…

You shall be missed.

 

[Casey123]

Facts are facts.

It is like saying…

Essentialism=born that way=fallacy, fantasy, not now or ever been proven to be true, a lie…

You shall be missed.

Again, no context.

 

[jwinch2]

It would be lovely for all Christians to march under the same banner, in the same church. Alas, I don’t ever forsee that day happening. There will always be those who refuse to swear any allegiance, spiritual or otherwise, to Rome. Count me as one of them. I don’t believe it truly matters if we’re ever in Communion with the Catholics. You guys do your thing, we’ll do our thing, and let’s adopt the “bar talk” agreement where we leave politics and religion out of our discussions with one another. We’ll be happy and get along nicely.

If you don’t want to hear Catholic doctrine defended, perhaps a forum named Catholic Answers, who chose a motto of “To Explain and Defend the Faith” was not your best choice.

 

[MartinJordan]

For the record, the Holy Father was suggesting that atheists and Christians can find common ground in the doing of good works and that this will allow us to understand each other better and provide a basis for communication. That is all.

'Zactly!

MJ

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, no context.

That’s a very good question, and if Rome’s opinion of what Christian unity and full Communion is everyone surrendering unto them, then I have to ask the same question - why are we even in dialogue?

We are here in dialogue to present the truth and defend the truth…not to accept innovations via polls, opinion, what everyone else is doing and if that dialogue, pointing out

Homosexual relations are not to be tolerated and are immoral to be Christian
Homosexual marriage is an abomination of the notion of marriage
Women are not going to be priests and never will be and why
and more

if you don’t want to know why we believe, have believed and will believe this and you come wanting to suggest that there be change…

If that is your intention, sooner or later you will realize that there is no concession for the truth…none, nada…nine…never…ever…you may find yourself in a situation where insisting that there is change is like this…:banghead:

If you are gay, acting out your SSA then I say stop, come home, consider living a moral life in Christ in the Church and learn to struggle as we all struggle. If not then do whatever you do and believe you are happy if that is the case.

then you will be missed

 

[Nine_Two]

I haven’t read this whole thread - but in answer to the original post, I don’t understand why the Anglican Church hasn’t already done it. Not only do other churches in the Communion do it already, but it just seems an odd line to draw in the sand between female priests and female bishops. The only arguments against female bishops I’ve ever heard apply to priestesses as well. And both seem equally at odds with ecumenical dialogue with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

 

[jwinch2]

I haven’t read this whole thread - but in answer to the original post, I don’t understand why the Anglican Church hasn’t already done it. Not only do other churches in the Communion do it already, but it just seems an odd line to draw in the sand between female priests and female bishops. The only arguments against female bishops I’ve ever heard apply to priestesses as well. And both seem equally at odds with ecumenical dialogue with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Fair points.

 

[Casey123]

If you are gay, acting out your SSA then I say stop, come home, consider living a moral life in Christ in the Church and learn to struggle as we all struggle. If not then do whatever you do and believe you are happy if that is the case.

then you will be missed

I am home.

Then I shall be missed, happily so.

Goodbye.

 

[andrewstx]

I haven’t read this whole thread - but in answer to the original post, I don’t understand why the Anglican Church hasn’t already done it. Not only do other churches in the Communion do it already, but it just seems an odd line to draw in the sand between female priests and female bishops. The only arguments against female bishops I’ve ever heard apply to priestesses as well. And both seem equally at odds with ecumenical dialogue with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

And yet Metropolitan Timothy Ware in the Orthodox Church speaks of a time when Orthodoxy ad women deacons and suggest that they might be brought back.