Church of England Homosexual Priest wedding

[SIA]

Please excuse me for my English, I have to sack “spellchecker”

Hid it ? if they hid it then they didn’t do a very good job.

Didn’t exist for decades ? it did, except very few knew about it, I’m sure many in the priesthood were as much surprised and shocked as the rest.

And to the last part of your reply, can you show me where the Catholic Church sanctions any of it?

Can you show me where the Catholic Church sanctions abortion, the heinous crime of murdering Gods creation ?

Can you show me one item where the Catholic Church supports same sex marriage ?

Can you show me one item where the Catholic Church sanctions SIN of any type or description ?

Hold on a sec. here. Let’s just go back to the beginning. The affair is sinful because it is obvious adultery. Everything in the line of forgiveness would operate in the same manner no matter who we are talking about. Having said that, the situation itself is different in such a manner that a Catholic bishop would not have a wife.

 

[thirdn6]

Hold on a sec. here. Let’s just go back to the beginning. The affair is sinful because it is obvious adultery. Everything in the line of forgiveness would operate in the same manner no matter who we are talking about. Having said that, the situation itself is different in such a manner that a Catholic bishop would not have a wife.

The affair stopped, the love goes on.
If she confessed about the affair (which you said is an obvious adultery), can she obtain absolution from her husband?

 

[Linda_Marie]

To bring this thread back onto the topic which is the Church of England, not the Catholic Church.

Leading Anglican bishops to boycott Lambeth Conference over gay clergy

He has already been snubbed by 250 Anglican bishops, mainly from Africa, who are meeting this week at a rival conference in Jerusalem, but the absence of English bishops would be a highly significant development for the future of the Church of England.

Rival meeting deepens Anglican rift

The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, - who is boycotting the Lambeth Conference - said his wish was to emulate the first Christians.

“I want that we go back to the first love that the early Church had in Jerusalem, that inspired them to mission, that allowed them to make sacrifices, that we go back to believing the word of God to be the word of God, as it is in the Bible.”

Gafcon traditionalists, such as Archbishop Orombi, believe liberals are reinterpreting the Bible to suit contemporary morals.

A booklet issued by the conference’s organisers puts it this way: “We want unity… but not at the cost of re-writing the Bible to accommodate the latest cultural trend.”

Instead of trying to change the subject, perhaps you could tell us what you would like to see happen with your church as a result of this development?
Would you like a split and let those who support this form their own church?
If they did, would you be happy with them calling themselves Anglican?

What would you find to be the best solution to this crisis in the Church of England? Rowan Williams fired as Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Robinson decommissioned along with his ‘husband’? or the so-called rebels brought into line with accepting openly-active homosexual clergy? or …???

Personally, I would like to see all the Anglicans who are fed up with Rowan Williams and his ilk and antics come home to the Catholic Church where we are waiting to welcome our brothers and sisters back with open arms.

 

[thirdn6]

Hi Linda Marie. I just want to assure you that my discussion with SIA is relevant to homosexual priests wedding. If he does answer my question.

Peace.

 

[GKC]

“Instead of trying to change the subject, perhaps you could tell us what you would like to see happen with your church as a result of this development?
Would you like a split and let those who support this form their own church?
If they did, would you be happy with them calling themselves Anglican”

This, of course, has already happened, a number of times, starting in 1979. Collectively, such Anglicans are referred to as Continuing Anglicans, and are not in communion with Canterbury. The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which you may have heard of, are those sorts of Anglicans.

GKC

*Posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[Linda_Marie]

“Instead of trying to change the subject, perhaps you could tell us what you would like to see happen with your church as a result of this development?
Would you like a split and let those who support this form their own church?
If they did, would you be happy with them calling themselves Anglican”

This, of course, has already happened, a number of times, starting in 1979. Collectively, such Anglicans are referred to as Continuing Anglicans, and are not in communion with Canterbury. The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which you may have heard of, are those sorts of Anglicans.

GKC

*Posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus Catholicus *

I’m having some difficulty understanding what is going on here. I was deliberately not addressing the issue of some ecclesial communities which call themselves Anglican no longer being in communion with Canterbury, cause I found it very confusing. Now, I see it is pertinent because it answered my question, sort of.

So, the TAC does not bow to Canterbury. Are those in communion with Canterbury unhappy about the TAC using the term Anglican? or are you unhappy about Canterbury using the term? or are all concerned unhappy with the lack of unity?

In this case it appears that Canterbury is the one out of sync (with the rest of Anglicans) and going astray while most of the rest of the Bishops are saying return to Gospel teachings. I looked at the numbers. Williams has 7? Bishops going to his Lambeth Council, yet there are more than 250 at Jerusalem so it would appear that Williams has the minority opinion.

How do you go about choosing a new Archibishop of Canterbury? Is there an impeachment process or do you have to wait till he dies? Do you want Williams to continue or should he stand down?

What do Anglicans want to happen about this?

 

[GKC]

I’m having some difficulty understanding what is going on here. I was deliberately not addressing the issue of some ecclesial communities which call themselves Anglican no longer being in communion with Canterbury, cause I found it very confusing. Now, I see it is pertinent because it answered my question, sort of.

So, the TAC does not bow to Canterbury. Are those in communion with Canterbury unhappy about the TAC using the term Anglican? or are you unhappy about Canterbury using the term? or are all concerned unhappy with the lack of unity?

As to happy, I couldn’t say. Nothing that they can do about it, of course, except enforce a broken communion, which isn’t routinely done. My rector, one of the Continuing Anglican sorts, has often cocelebrated in CoE parishes, and our parish is, as many other Continuing Anglicans parishes are, members of the Foward in Faith-UK group that is primarily the remnants of orthodox Anglicanism in the CoE. And Continuing Anglican priests are routinely members of the Anglican Society of the Holy Cross, an organization for Anglo-Catholics. Though I heard some rumor that there might be some trouble brewing over that. And I’ve also heard that Continuing Anglicans are not currently permitted to celebrate at the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. Things vary.

Personally, I’m unhappy that the Anglican Communion ran off the rails around 40 years ago (yes, some folks would specify an earlier date). Nothing to be done about that, either.

In this case it appears that Canterbury is the one out of sync (with the rest of Anglicans) and going astray while most of the rest of the Bishops are saying return to Gospel teachings. I looked at the numbers. Williams has 7? Bishops going to his Lambeth Council, yet there are more than 250 at Jerusalem so it would appear that Williams has the minority opinion.

Canterbury is the voice not only of offical Anglicanism generally, but of the first world, developed countries Anglicanism (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, like that). That represents the old school corporate power structure in the Anglican Communion. The real numbers are with the third world, especially Africa. Hence the apostates have the power and the money, the orthodox have the numbers.

As to how many will actually attend Lambeth, I don’t know. You can get more than 70 bishops, just out of the Episcopal Church.

How do you go about choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury? Is there an impeachment process or do you have to wait till he dies? Do you want Williams to continue or should he stand down?

The CoE, being an Erastian Church, will chose +Williams’ successor through Her Majesty’s government, the Sovereign being officially the governor of the Church in England. Politics within the CoE will be the usual determing factor. That is, a strident traditionalist orthdox Anglo-Catholic will not make the short list. Or the long list, either.

I am unaware if there is a practical method of deposing an Archbisop of Canterbury (as opposed to a theoretical one), but +Williams will be there until he steps down. It is common for Archbishops to retire, not die in their office.

What do Anglicans want to happen about this?

Beats me.

Personally, I’d like to see the entire Anglican Communion become raving traditionalist orthodox high church Anglo-Catholics, who insist on, and receive incense, Latin chants in the anthems, and the Angelus or *Regina Coeli *in the Mass, and frequent Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

I am not likely to see it, of course. My parish comes close.

GKC

 

[shawnbm]

I know it was probably inadvertant, but Gene Robinson’s “marriage” to his long-time partner was not blessed by the Episcopal Church in the USA, but, rather, was a civil union permitted by the law of the jurisdiction in which they exchanged vows. The Anglican “marriage” to which the recent articles refer to, on the other hand, was performed in a well known Anglican (Church of England) parish in London (if memory serves me correctly) and was, apparently, approved to take place in that church by either the parish rector/vicar or the bishop of that area. That is an entirely different thing, canonically and ecclesiastically speaking. For this reason (I believe), the archbishops of Canterbury and York wrote a scathing letter to the church officials who were involved in this, which was widely reported on many news outlets, including Catholic news media. This “marriage” or “same sex blessing rite” directly violated the dictates of the Lambeth Conference of 1998 on that very issue. We will see how this plays out. Shalom.

 

[teak421]

It’s wrong, understood. But it is always Catholics pointing the finger at someone else. What about the countless children that were sexually violated at the hands of the ONLY clergy to be successors of Peter? You seem to like to try and skip over that.

How many Priests were actually convicted in a court of law compared to the entire number of Priests active in the US church? Spend a few minutes and look it up… Come back and then tell us your view.

 

[frej]

Reagrding the article referred to: note that the Church of England does not condone the event, in fact it is a violation of the Church’s canons. Understand that the issue of homosexuality is increasing in most western countries. Laws are being passed in the U.S. and Canada allowing such same-sex blessings and unions. In most cases, the Anglican Communion is at odds and is seeking forms of coping.

The 1998 Lambeth Conference issued a statement that “homosexuality is not compatible with scripture” we are also cautioned against irrational homophobia. I believe that prayer and forgiveness are the means by which we sustain ourselves.

Please do not condemn the Anglican Church for the actions of a few! We do not teach a homosexual lifestyle, we merely ask for the respect and tolerance of those who are thus persuaded.

 

[shawnbm]

I think frej says some good things in his post. All must view the issue with humility and charity.

 

[dprewett]

I find It interesting that every time I post something about some other christian faith we must discusse the sex scandles in the rcc for two weeks. This had nothing to do with that. It has every thing to do with the fact that marriage is a union between Man Woman and God. This is a union that must be protected in order to protect children and families. This is not a finger pointing exercise. We must come together no matter what your church and fight this movement. From what I can gather most of my leftward leaning friends (Politcally) feel marriage is their so you can get a tax break and lower car inssurance. We have stars on TV that our youth look up to whose marriages last no longer than the hunny moon. Lets discusse these things.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Personally, I’d like to see the entire Anglican Communion become raving traditionalist orthodox high church Anglo-Catholics, who insist on, and receive incense, Latin chants in the anthems, and the Angelus or *Regina Coeli *in the Mass, and frequent Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

I am not likely to see it, of course. My parish comes close.

GKC

Thank you for your kind answers, GKC. I think I understand a bit better now.

It seems that this is a crisis time for the Church of England and what happens at these two conferences will affect the entire Communion for some time to come.

I will be praying for you all.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for your kind answers, GKC. I think I understand a bit better now.

It seems that this is a crisis time for the Church of England and what happens at these two conferences will affect the entire Communion for some time to come.

I will be praying for you all.

You are welcome and I thank you for the good wishes.

It is indeed a crisis of the official Anglican world. Anglicans tend to address crises slowly. Very slowly. I expect little visible to emerge from the conferences.

GKC

 

[Jfran41]

QUOTE=SIA;3807790]It’s wrong, understood. But it is always Catholics pointing the finger at someone else. What about the countless children that were sexually violated at the hands of the ONLY clergy to be successors of Peter? You seem to like to try and skip over that.[/QUOT*

“It is always Catholics pointing the finger at someone else…” ??
For those determined to brand Catholics as the finger pointers not the ones pointed at, and all Catholic prelates as pedophiles because of the actions of a few, stop a second to look at who made certain that anti-Catholic propaganda dominated the media not just for weeks but for many, many months and the reasons they have for keeping the story alive.
It was The Boston Globe, the far left, a/k/a “progressive” Massachusetts subsidiary of the New York Times. Did they have an agenda or, as they would have the world believe, were they simply acting as high-minded activists in defense of the innocent? We would prefer to believe that it was only the latter but we cannot ignore their ongoing program.
That program was and is the promulgation of homosexual marriage. Their editorial pages took every opportunity to plea the case for the marriage of homosexuals. The Globe not only broke the pedophilia story but they made it front page and editorial page material for a very long time thereafter.
The Globe and The NY Times were well aware that traditional heterosexual marriage was facing a Massachusetts court challenge and they also new that the Catholic Church was the biggest and most vocal supporter of traditional marriage.
Pedophilia in the Catholic Priesthood was tailor made for their efforts to silence or at least mute Catholic protests.
However, the Globe’s writings before and after the scandal raise serious questions about their being an objective news purveyor.

Were many innocent youths sexually abused by more than a few priests? The, awful, painful truth is yes!
Was there an attempt at cover up by the Boston Archdiocese? Clearly, yes!
Were there a number of priests who were indeed pedophiles? Yes!
Does that automatically make a Roman Catholic priest a pedophile? Absolutely not!

 

[frej]

You are welcome and I thank you for the good wishes.

It is indeed a crisis of the official Anglican world. Anglicans tend to address crises slowly. Very slowly. I expect little visible to emerge from the conferences.

GKC

I thank GKC for these sound words. Yes, the communion of which I am a part is in a difficult situation. However, I must remind those of you reading these posts that the issue is not necessarily sexuality but rather authority. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican communion changes from the bottom up, not top down. Yes, we belive in the authority of Scripture but even that is tempered by Tradition and Reason. Anglicans call these three the “three-legged stool” which supports our faith. In order to truly understand Anglicanism one must understand the Theology of Thomas Hooker.

However, I disagree with the premise that the issue is Anglican only, I believe several other denominations are also struggling with the issue. May all be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our denomination is diverse and complex and, yes, moves very slowly. Prayer is always welcome. Thank you for suspending judgment and being open to the working of the Spirit.

 

[shawnbm]

I thank GKC for these sound words. Yes, the communion of which I am a part is in a difficult situation. However, I must remind those of you reading these posts that the issue is not necessarily sexuality but rather authority. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican communion changes from the bottom up, not top down. Yes, we belive in the authority of Scripture but even that is tempered by Tradition and Reason. Anglicans call these three the “three-legged stool” which supports our faith. In order to truly understand Anglicanism one must understand the Theology of Thomas Hooker.

However, I disagree with the premise that the issue is Anglican only, I believe several other denominations are also struggling with the issue. May all be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our denomination is diverse and complex and, yes, moves very slowly. Prayer is always welcome. Thank you for suspending judgment and being open to the working of the Spirit.

Your post reminds me of something my parish priest (I am also an Episcopalian) once said, that we are more of a bottom up rather than top down version of the catholic faith. He then went on to add that Vatican II was so significant that it essentially led to the “Roman” catholic church (our brethren he calls them) becoming more “democratized”, at least in terms of the church incorporating more feedback from the laity in the governance of the church worldwide. What do some think here of that? I will share my views later.

 

[GKC]

I thank GKC for these sound words. Yes, the communion of which I am a part is in a difficult situation. However, I must remind those of you reading these posts that the issue is not necessarily sexuality but rather authority. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican communion changes from the bottom up, not top down. Yes, we belive in the authority of Scripture but even that is tempered by Tradition and Reason. Anglicans call these three the “three-legged stool” which supports our faith. In order to truly understand Anglicanism one must understand the Theology of Thomas Hooker.

However, I disagree with the premise that the issue is Anglican only, I believe several other denominations are also struggling with the issue. May all be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Our denomination is diverse and complex and, yes, moves very slowly. Prayer is always welcome. Thank you for suspending judgment and being open to the working of the Spirit.

And I thank you for your choice of words. However, I must likely spoil the irenic tone by adding that what I said was not a plea for patience on anyone’s part. It was a reflection that official Anglicanism, for the most part, is no longer driven to action by any recognisable Christian principles; principles that would be recognised as historic Creedal Christianity, or in keeping with the undivided Church. Hence, the existence of the TAC and other what are termed Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, of which I am a part.

I wish you well, but IMO, official Anglicanism has, severally, forfeited it’s claim to Catholicism, embraced heresy, and is approaching the fringes of apostasy. That Anglicanism moves slowly, in the face of these issues, is in no wise an endorsement.

I do agree with you, re: authority.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[frej]

Thank you Shawnbm, I apprecaite your thoughful kindness. In my previous post I mention what I perceive to be a polity difference between the two historic catholic positions. Anglicanism is not hierarchical by nature. We establish positions differently, and there exists no official church head of state. This is a difficult concept for some to accept.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And I thank you for your choice of words. However, I must likely spoil the irenic tone by adding that what I said was not a plea for patience on anyone’s part. It was a reflection that official Anglicanism, for the most part, is no longer driven to action by any recognisable Christian principles; principles that would be recognised as historic Creedal Christianity, or in keeping with the undivided Church. Hence, the existence of the TAC and other what are termed Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, of which I am a part.

I wish you well, but IMO, official Anglicanism has, severally, forfeited it’s claim to Catholicism, embraced heresy, and is approaching the fringes of apostasy. That Anglicanism moves slowly, in the face of these issues, is in no wise an endorsement.

I do agree with you, re: authority.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

Which jurisdiction are you within? I’ve heard good things about the Reformed Episcopal Church.