Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at Henry and Meghan's Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
The Anglican rejection of authority is why there is an Anglican church.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, and always thought the whole Anglican position was rather odd when I was a Protestant, ironically enough. (Yes, I see it. LOL on me for sure.)

But the fact remains that their views on what is right and wrong really have zero effect on us. I’ll submit that it might in my house (and even did when I was a Methodist), but when it comes to Harry and Meghan, it’s not about us in the least.

It’s about their rules and their views. Not ours.
 
Pup7 said:
But the fact remains that their views on what is right and wrong really have zero effect on us. I’ll submit that it might in my house (and even did when I was a Methodist), but when it comes to Harry and Meghan, it’s not about us in the least.

It’s about their rules and their views. Not ours.
Click to expand...
There views don’t have no effect on us. In as much as they purport to be a legitimate ‘branch’ of the Christian Faith they do have an effect. Their rules and views undermine unity and do harm to the one, true Faith.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
Pup7:
But the fact remains that their views on what is right and wrong really have zero effect on us. I’ll submit that it might in my house (and even did when I was a Methodist), but when it comes to Harry and Meghan, it’s not about us in the least.

It’s about their rules and their views. Not ours.
Click to expand...
There views don’t have no effect on us. In as much as they purport to be a legitimate ‘branch’ of the Christian Faith they do have an effect. Their rules and views undermine unity and do harm to the one, true Faith.
Click to expand...
Basically what you’ve just done is slagged every single non-Catholic on here, including the man I married (who isn’t on here, LOL). I can’t say I agree with that tactic at all. So much for the teaching that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Yes, one can’t but reflect that those who see nothing in this happy occasion other than yet another opportunity to expound on the iniquity of others ought, perhaps, to read Bishop Curry’s address.
 
Last edited:
Or even listen to the wisdom of Pope Francis, for that matter.

I thought Bishop Curry was brilliant. I’ve got the BBCA rebroadcast going on in the background so I’m looking forward to a second hearing. Here on the West Coast we missed a lot of the “pregaming” and I do love watching all the guests arrive. I am a girl, after all. 🙂
 
Last edited:
I don’t think I have. Ecumenism doesn’t mean that the obvious truth regarding authority disappears. When I was a Protestant it didn’t offend me that the Catholic Church said my church was invalid. I thought the Catholic Church was invalid. Why would I care about what I thought was an invalid church thought about me? Either the Reformation was justified or it wasn’t.
 
I’ve never thought any Christian was invalid even as I believed (and believe) I’m following the right one. Maybe because doing so would’ve been rather odd as my father was Catholic.

I just realized the amalgamation I live in and got a bit of a chuckle out of it.
 
Last edited:
Thought it was nice of the Coptic Orthodox bishop to give them his blessing and to lead the Lord’s Prayer.
 
Is this the case? Do we consider other Christians invalid? After all, we acknowledge their baptisms and marriages, and consider that in their baptism they are grafted in.

Edit: this case isn’t straight forward as we are lacking full understanding of the situation. We know of the previous marriage and we know of the recent baptism. We also know that, previously, Charles and Camilla couldn’t marry in the C of E church because of divorce. So, something is different in this case. We’re judging a situation without the facts.
 
Last edited:
Okay Michael I think I get what you’re asking. First about the Protestant tribunal I would say I am not so sure. I am not Anglican so I am not sure exactly how or even if they do tribunals for this. Also this gets more tricky due to the fact we are dealing with marriage which the Church sees as kind of a natural sacrament that is not exclusively for Catholics or Christians. So the Church realized that even Non Christians can have valid marriages, but not sacramental marriages. From my understanding even valid marriages would need to be annulled if the person’s former spouse is still alive, and the other spouse wants to remarry a Christian. Now does a protestant tribunal have authority to declare a valid non sacramental marriage null? I don’t know for sure. My gut says no, but you would have to ask someone who is an expert in Canon Law.

My answer for the first part about “will Catholics accept this as a reason for her to remarry”. When a Catholic tribunal declares a former marriage annulled, I would probably say most would accept this. Now this doesn’t mean that the tribunal’s decision about the annulment was correct. I truly believe there are tribunals who’s decisions declaring marriages annulled are wrong, and they treat annulments like Catholic divorce. Therefore in that circumstance the person who gets remarried is still actually married to their former spouse, but their culpability for going with the tribunal’s decision and remarrying means they do not commit sin due to their ignorance. The real blame would come back to the tribunal who aren’t following the rules the Church has laid out.
 
sudy said:
Is this the case? Do we consider other Christians invalid? After all, we acknowledge their baptisms and marriages, and consider that in their baptism they are grafted in.
Click to expand...
Not individual Christians but churches. In fact they are rightly called ‘ecclesial communities’ and not churches. There is only one Church. Outside of the Church there are Christians by virtue of baptism and faith. But they are in an irregular relationship to the Church.
 
Last edited:
sudy said:
Is this the case? Do we consider other Christians invalid? After all, we acknowledge their baptisms and marriages, and consider that in their baptism they are grafted in.

Edit: this case isn’t straight forward as we are lacking full understanding of the situation. We know of the previous marriage and we know of the recent baptism. We also know that, previously, Charles and Camilla couldn’t marry in the C of E church because of divorce. So, something is different in this case. We’re judging a situation without the facts.
Click to expand...
I posted the guidelines for a marriage by a divorced person in the C of E above.

Charles was able to marry post-divorce (as was Camilla) because of the changes in the Matrimonial Act of 1973 as well as the change of the C of E position on divorce, which happened not long before his marriage, in 2002.
themonk86 said:
Okay Michael I think I get what you’re asking. First about the Protestant tribunal I would say I am not so sure. I am not Anglican so I am not sure exactly how or even if they do tribunals for this.
Click to expand...
They don’t. They have been allowing divorced persons to marry in the church since 2002.
 
Pup7 said:
Charles was able to marry post-divorce (as was Camilla) because of the changes in the Matrimonial Act of 1973 as well as the change of the C of E position on divorce, which happened not long before his marriage, in 2002.
Click to expand...
I’m confused by this as I understood they had a civil ceremony and not a church ceremony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top