G
gamewell45
Guest
Nah, just civil debate.Episcopalian internal civil war here…
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
But I can’t see the RCC as quite as …ah…motley a…er… group.There have been a lot of Catholic civil wars in here lately actually. Good to know that Anglicans aren’t the only folks who can’t agree if it’s sunny outside
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
I thought I gave my reasons; I’ll give them again.
By telling the African Anglicans that they have no business holding us accountable to traditional Christian morality, we have made ourselves unable to hold *them *accountable to treat gay people with charity and respect. The Church needs to be a worldwide body of people, a truly Catholic Church, because otherwise each little segment of the Church just goes merrily on its way, captive to local cultural patterns. That’s the model of “Church” (if you can dignify it with such a name) reflected by the recent actions of the Episcopal Church’s leadership.
You may be a very charitable person. However, the views you have expressed on this forum are thoroughly uncharitable. And yes, I can judge that.
How are you defining “charity”?
Isn’t charity embodied (literally) in the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If the divine Logos had practiced your kind of charity, we would all still be lost in our sins. Fortunately, He didn’t leave us alone. He gave up His life for us, and the precise way in which He did so was to make such a pest of Himself that we killed him in exasperation.
Edwin
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Edwin, while I have a pretty strong feeling that we disagree on the issue of homosexuality in the Church, what you say here reflects a concern of mine as well. TEC has lost a significant amount of moral credibility (if not all of it in the eyes of some) because it has refused to listen to it’s brother and sister Churches. While I do not disagree with the Episcopal Church’s fundamental position regarding homosexuals, we have lost the ability to witness effectively to that position and it’s relationship to the Good News by appearing to our brothers and sisters to care little or nothing for moral codes generally, let alone what they may think of them. We can say we want to have a conversation, but we don’t seem particularly interested in listening. I don’t know what sort of a conversation we expect to have if all we want to do is condescend to pontificate. In a very significant way, we have broken communion with them. Granted, it takes two to tango, but our obstinacy in this regard concerns me more than theirs because it is mine too, if only be virtue of coming from the Church to which I belong. One of the things that drew and draws me to Anglicanism has been the idea that there is room for everyone at the table, and room for debate. Perhaps that was and is a bit myopic of me. But I see this image as less and less of a liveable reality. And that saddens me.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
B
benidict
Guest
no my friend, i did not know this! how interesting. i wouldnt mind sharing the presidents company. hes a likable guy. im a conservative libertarian, but i see good on both sides of the aisle. and bad. that is good company. i dont think anyone can point to this man, and point out any character flaws. hes faithful to his wife, a good father, who genuinly seems to take an intrest in his children, not just for photo ops. hes a very good public speaker, and i believe he really does have the countries best interest at heart. although i disagree with some of his policies, as far as politicians go, id have to say he is one of the more desirable ones. and you are correct in his conservative approach. i dont get much into politics, but he doesnt seem to be doing too much different in some areas than his predecessor. in others…well we did elect a democrat, so he does have the opportunity to bring his ideas to the fore. eventually, someone else will. its a pretty good system i think. peace to you and yours
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Loyalty in a marriage and good fatherhood is beside the point. And I don’t think this man does have the country’s best interests at heart. I think he’s too much of a far left idealogue and demogogue to have our interests at heart. He’s a reckless-spending, big government one-trick pony act who disregards the sanctity of life, emboldens gay folks in the military and in our society to live that lifestyle proudly, he is about to raise our taxes and cut off our child tax credits, has been hostile to the very unions that got him elected, has no business sense, is disrespectful to the prayer and church communities, pontificates and doesn’t lead or initiate ideas, and ultimately is about to run this country into the ground. I wouldn’t eat lunch with him on a dare…I wouldn’t be able to keep my lunch down…
no my friend, i did not know this! how interesting. i wouldnt mind sharing the presidents company. hes a likable guy. im a conservative libertarian, but i see good on both sides of the aisle. and bad. that is good company. i dont think anyone can point to this man, and point out any character flaws. hes faithful to his wife, a good father, who genuinly seems to take an intrest in his children, not just for photo ops. hes a very good public speaker, and i believe he really does have the countries best interest at heart. although i disagree with some of his policies, as far as politicians go, id have to say he is one of the more desirable ones. and you are correct in his conservative approach. i dont get much into politics, but he doesnt seem to be doing too much different in some areas than his predecessor. in others…well we did elect a democrat, so he does have the opportunity to bring his ideas to the fore. eventually, someone else will. its a pretty good system i think. peace to you and yours
L
larkin31
Guest
I thought I read that we could not discuss political parties and candidates (reps) at this site. Can I respond, or not?
C
Contarini
Guest
Mark,
We do disagree, but I value the wisdom and charity evident in your posts. This is an extremely difficult issue, and the arguments you made on the “sexual orientation” thread are arguments that need to be taken very seriously.
God bless!
Edwin
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think it is okay now. Previously, a separate forum for Politics was needed because Catholic Answers tax status was challenged by the IRS. The Politics forum was officially sponsored by Catholic Answers Action, which can engage in political activities.
Now that Catholic Answers has won its case with the IRS, the separate forum for Politics was no longer needed, and merged into another forum. By extension, I think that means we can post about politics in the rest of CAF.
G
gamewell45
Guest
Thanks for your response. Its obvious to me that you are “set” in your position, which you’ve stated above and in prior posts on this thread. Likewise I’m “set” in my position as well and in this case I think its best that you and I agree to disagree.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not trying to change your mind about the gay issue, if that’s what you think this is about. But I am sorry to see someone declare himself or herself “set” in the view that “live and let live” is an example of charity. If you don’t want to explain why you think this, that is of course your choice. But I wish you would. I think you are terribly wrong, and that this is far more important than the specific issues that are dividing Anglicans right now. Your attitude dissolves the Church and makes a mockery of Christianity.
Edwin
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Think that’s just a tad much, Edwin? Wow! Glad I’m not the one to tick you off today! Eesh!?
Eesh!?
C
Contarini
Guest
Come on, Gurney–you’ve said some colorful things about the Episcopal Church in your day!Think that’s just a tad much, Edwin? Wow! Glad I’m not the one to tick you off today!
Edwin
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
yeah, but I’m not in it! LOL and you guys are supposed to be on the same team here? And your statement was a personal blast to the guy. But hey, I don’t have a pony in this race! LOL…You know how I feel about TEC
I actually really enjoy your posts. They definitely come from a totally different angle for sure. I don’t understand your motivations for not converting to either CC or OC despite your numerous explanations. We just think differently. But your acumen and historical knowledge is very impressive. You’re one of the brightest chaps I’ve seen on here. So don’t get mad here, put your pistol in its holster, and know that I like most of your posts and debates.
I actually really enjoy your posts. They definitely come from a totally different angle for sure. I don’t understand your motivations for not converting to either CC or OC despite your numerous explanations. We just think differently. But your acumen and historical knowledge is very impressive. You’re one of the brightest chaps I’ve seen on here. So don’t get mad here, put your pistol in its holster, and know that I like most of your posts and debates.
Come on, Gurney–you’ve said some colorful things about the Episcopal Church in your day!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Supposed by whom?
Who says that “the Episcopal Church” is a “team” at all?
I’m on one team: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Everything between that and my local bishop is just politics and convenience. I don’t recognize the “Episcopal Church” as an ecclesiologically relevant entity at all. I respect and support my bishop’s decision not to break communion with other bishops of the Episcopal Church unless absolutely necessary. But I would like us as a diocese to find some way of declaring that we still desire to be in communion with the ACNA bishops of San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth as well. In fact, while this is completely unrealistic, I’d also advocate declaring that the Episcopal bishops of those places are schismatic.
But you’re right that I phrased it personally and shouldn’t have done so.
Gamewell, I apologize for that if you’re still listening. I should have said: “the view of charity that you seem to hold, and which seems to be expressed by the actions of the Episcopal Church’s leadership” does the bad things I mentioned!
I don’t know your heart, and you may well be a very Christlike person. I know that I’m not
So no statement of personal superiority was intended.But the confusion of charity with tolerance is a deadly one, and I stand by that.
Edwin
L
larkin31
Guest
These overlap in reality. Don’t be too righteous; it’s a gamble.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I was totally kidding with you, Edwin. Sorry if I got you riled up LOL…tone is tough to gauge on message boards/forums. Of course you’re not on a “team.” It’s just my feeble attempt at humor in the midst of a debate. Let your hair down a bit and know I’m merely kidding with ya.
Let your hair down a bit and know I’m merely kidding with ya.Supposed by whom?
Who says that “the Episcopal Church” is a “team” at all?
I’m on one team: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Everything between that and my local bishop is just politics and convenience. I don’t recognize the “Episcopal Church” as an ecclesiologically relevant entity at all. I respect and support my bishop’s decision not to break communion with other bishops of the Episcopal Church unless absolutely necessary. But I would like us as a diocese to find some way of declaring that we still desire to be in communion with the ACNA bishops of San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth as well. In fact, while this is completely unrealistic, I’d also advocate declaring that the Episcopal bishops of those places are schismatic.
But you’re right that I phrased it personally and shouldn’t have done so.
Gamewell, I apologize for that if you’re still listening. I should have said: “the view of charity that you seem to hold, and which seems to be expressed by the actions of the Episcopal Church’s leadership” does the bad things I mentioned!
I don’t know your heart, and you may well be a very Christlike person. I know that I’m not
But the confusion of charity with tolerance is a deadly one, and I stand by that.
Edwin
- Status