Ask an Anglican Anything

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the Anglican Church believe that the Bible was wrong when it condemned gay sex and relations that are “contrary to nature”?
Does it matter whether or not the bishops of the Church of England believe in the Biblical teachings on gay sex?
 
Female priestly ordination, for example, is in direct opposition to 2,000 yrs of Christian Orthodoxy.

I am more understanding of someone having issues with Papal supremacy or infallibility, etc, than I am in this case.

#Resistmodernism
 
ltwin said:
40.png
AtheistNoMore:
So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?
Click to expand...
There is no comparison to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, and never has been. The Archbishop of Canterbury has very little power outside his own diocese. What power he has comes more through persuasion.

In North America and the rest of the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury has no power at all, since all the other Anglican churches have their own archbishops or presiding bishops. Canterbury only has “influence”.
Click to expand...
Hm…the question asked is “So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?”

Basically, as I understand your answer, you accept the AoC because the AoC has no influence and therefore, is basically powerless. Do you see any Bishops thus described in Scripture? For example, St. Paul readily casts out any members which he finds leading sinful lives. And Jesus said, “if he doesn’t believe the Church, treat him as a heathen” Matt 18:17.
 
De_Maria said:
Hm…the question asked is “So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?”

Basically, as I understand your answer, you accept the AoC because the AoC has no influence and therefore, is basically powerless
Click to expand...
No, the answer was, and is, that the Archbishop is not the supreme head of the Anglican Church of Canada. He has in fact no rôle within the Anglican Church of Canada. He is Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, Metropolitan.

His rôle within the Anglican Communion is as one of the four Instruments of Communion and as spiritual head. He is first among the equal leaders of the 40 independent autonomous member churches. His rôle is in no way equivalent to that of the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Lenten_ashes said:
Female priestly ordination, for example, is in direct opposition to 2,000 yrs of Christian Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
It might be. But understanding of the priesthood can become more developed with time. The RC church might get there to. Not in my lifetime, but sometime.

The church used to teach that the earth was the centre of the universe.
 
AlNg said:
Does the Anglican Church believe that the Bible was wrong when it condemned gay sex and relations that are “contrary to nature”?
Click to expand...
Nope. The bible was not wrong. But our comprehension of human physiology has changed over time. Physicians no longer prescribe blood-letting to common ailments. Which is to say, what was common practice at one time in history can change as our understanding develops.
 
Caritas6744 said:
one can argue that by making heretofore non-infallible doctrines (like Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Ascension) infallible and binding on the Catholic faithful, doctrine is being changed as well. Previously it wasn’t required to believe these doctrines and after it was. Making a doctrine infallible is a doctrinal change.
Click to expand...
Consider St John Henry Newman in Development of Doctrine.
 
It was a a merciful act.

For mind-mangling and head-hurting technical details, one might try Kelly/THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.
 
Why would anyone join a church that was created for the purpose of supplying the King with an heir.
The Anglican church was created by edict of the English King, Henry VIII, after Pope Clement VII refused to grant him a divorce from his Spanish wive who had passed the age of child-bearing without giving him a male heir. It was created for the selfish purposes of the king to produce an heir .
I could create a church with all the things I don’t like and it wouldn’t be any different.
I could never join this church for these reasons.
 
On that, as on all my hobby areas of possible contention and misunderstanding, I save the essence of my posts to file, and quote myself, as appropriate. Saves original thinking. And occasionally (I love this) gets me pointed at as lifting the words of someone else.
 
Decree of nullity.

The history of what happened, when Hank appeared as the perfect storm, goes way back. I’ll try and touch on it, when I get back from a trip to purchase boiled peanuts. I got some reference material ready to hand. But this is a very busy day.

It involves the concept of nascent nationalism. And yes, Henry’s dynastic issues and his hormones. History is complicated, being full of people and stuff.
 
BT3241 said:
Why would anyone join a church that was created for the purpose of supplying the King with an heir
Click to expand...
Why would anyone join a church that pressed vulnerable and ignorant lay people to give money to guarantee their place in heaven? Martin Luther asked that question in the 16th Century.
 
Caritas6744 said:
Nope. The bible was not wrong. But our comprehension of human physiology has changed over time. Physicians no longer prescribe blood-letting to common ailments. Which is to say, what was common practice at one time in history can change as our understanding develops.
Click to expand...
Not a clear answer. Is same sex marriage wrong according to the Anglican Church? Is gay sex against nature according to the Anglican Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top