Church of England to consider transgender naming ceremony

  • Thread starter Thread starter Murmurs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
No, I consider them Anglicans. Anglicans are motley in the extreme. Sometimes I have trouble spotting their Christian trademarks, though.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus
Click to expand...
Motley, true. And they consider Continuing Anglicans to be schismatics, no doubt, since CA’s are “not in communion with Canterbury.”
 
Faithdancer said:
Motley, true. And they consider Continuing Anglicans to be schismatics, no doubt, since CA’s are “not in communion with Canterbury.”
Click to expand...
Some do. Some don’t. Some in the Communion consider some not in the Communion Anglicans. Some don’t.

Motley is le mot juste.
 
GKC said:
Some do. Some don’t. Some in the Communion consider some not in the Communion Anglicans. Some don’t.

Motley is le mot juste.
Click to expand...
Somewhat analogous to the SSPX situation. Not in cause so much, but in effect.
 
Faithdancer said:
Somewhat analogous to the SSPX situation. Not in cause so much, but in effect.
Click to expand...
Oh, maybe not; hard to generalize. In my circles of the Continuum, nobody is paying much attention to Cantuar, or the gracious Katherine, nor I have seen much attention paid to such as we’uns, from those quarters.
 
Errham said:
Wow, it’s almost as if the Church was founded specifically so that the Monarch of England could promote sexual promiscuity. Who’d have guessed, huh?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Simplistic and way off the mark. The English Reformation was well underway before Henry came along and separation was arguably inevitable.
 
But at any rate a proposal by one priest, which aims to find a way to welcome one group of people, but which there is apparently no plan even to debate at present, is quite a good excuse for 20-odd posts raining ridicule and contempt on the Church of England. Is that, I wonder, the appropriate response?
 
Picky_Picky said:
But at any rate a proposal by one priest, which aims to find a way to welcome one group of people, but which there is apparently no plan even to debate at present, is quite a good excuse for 20-odd posts raining ridicule and contempt on the Church of England. Is that, I wonder, the appropriate response?
Click to expand...
Well… maybe?

Given how things sort of camel into the tent, with respect to a number of issues in the CoE, I’m jaded.

Not engaged, just jaded.
 
GKC said:
Well… maybe?

Given how things sort of camel into the tent, with respect to a number of issues in the CoE, I’m jaded.

Not engaged, just jaded.
Click to expand...
Yes, Gilbert Keith, but at least you tend to have the brain engaged before you react.

Not that such engagement guarantees a correct response, of course 🙂
 
Picky_Picky said:
But at any rate a proposal by one priest, which aims to find a way to welcome one group of people, but which there is apparently no plan even to debate at present, is quite a good excuse for 20-odd posts raining ridicule and contempt on the Church of England. Is that, I wonder, the appropriate response?
Click to expand...
Yes. There have been too many situations on related issues where the appropriate ridicule and contempt was too little, too late.

I like your phrase “raining ridicule and contempt”.
Sometimes that can be inappropriate, but sometimes that’s the loving response.
 
It must be said that the CofE is facing something of a crisis here in the UK. It has been reported in UK newspapers that the Anglican Church as it stands in the UK is set to die off in less than a generation due to its ageing population and the fact that practically no new members, and particularly young people, are joining to replace them.
 
commenter said:
Yes. There have been too many situations on related issues where the appropriate ridicule and contempt was too little, too late.

I like your phrase “raining ridicule and contempt”.
Sometimes that can be inappropriate, but sometimes that’s the loving response.
Click to expand...
The phrase is a piece of plagiarism, I’m afraid. The old common law definition of defamation was to hold someone up to “hatred, ridicule or contempt”. English libel law has changed a few times since I last understood it, so it may no longer apply.
 
GEddie said:
Baptism is a soul-deep mark upon the body.

So is one’s sexuality. Change the name, alter the surface of the skin,** it doesn’t matter**, every body-cell and the soul remain in the original gender unto forever. The person would just have damaged their body in vain.

The COE is IMNAAHO doing everybody a disservice by trying to sacramentalize something that does not in fact happen.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
DNA doesn’t lie or conveniently change: our male or femaleness is what God granted to each of us. DNA changes by cancer, exposure to radiation or old age perhaps. So this change pertaining to gender bending stems from the head: emotions, the psyche 🤷

Interesting, the emotions… how they can foul us up big time & cause much chaos & sorrow
Fact is you are what sex God made you to begin with & doesn’t He know best? Do WE know better than GOD who He made us to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top