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.
GKMotley said:
Motley, those Anglicans
Click to expand...
I’ve seen that statement quite a bit on CAF. I’m glad I didn’t see it before I became a Catholic as it would have seriously made me reconsider. Insulting others is not the way to attract.
 
exnihilo said:
The protection of clergy who engaged in wrongful sex acts was bad. But there is a world of difference in that and saying those acts weren’t wrong at all.
Click to expand...
So you care more about what a person says than how a person conducts themselves?

I really don’t care how you arrive at your standards for hearing someone preach. But I’m explaining to you, since you persist in asking, that a person’s actions carry much more weight with me.

As a result of the distressing and appalling actions of many priests and bishops, with regards to child sex abuse and rape, I will tell you I am far more circumspect with regards to which Catholic leaders I listen to.

That said, I still do listen to and read from a variety of Catholic theologians and clergy. Obviously.
 
Last edited:
It’s on CAF because I’m on CAF. I suspect, in this context, I originated it, in the form “Anglicans are a motley crew”.

It’s a shortcut to explaining Anglicanism to folk who know little of the breed. And was the reason (and role) that got me started posting, anywhere, 20 years ago, give or take a fortnight.

I’m Anglican.
 
I’m not sure it’s giving a good impression for Anglicanism.

There are probably better ways to present it.
 
Touche.

Don’t mind me, as you know, I’m Episcopalian.

Insert motley breed jokes regarding poor conformation.

Confirmation. Whatever.
 
Anglicanism, with warts, is my main metier. Along with selected omniscience. I would find it quite difficult, not to say dishonest, to concentrate on making a good impression re: Anglicanism. Too many of the motley sort to make such a generalization about the tribe.
 
QContinuum said:
So you care more about what a person says than how a person conducts themselves?
Click to expand...
Both are important. Actively promoting and approving homosexual or any illicit sex would be enough for me to not listen to someone in regards to spiritual matters.
QContinuum said:
As a result of the distressing and appalling actions of many priests and bishops, with regards to child sex abuse and rape, I will tell you I am far more circumspect with regards to which Catholic leaders I listen to.
Click to expand...
I can understand that. But the Church as a whole never promoted this. Individual men may have not gotten rid of problem priests but they still never publicly approved the acts. Besides, if the issue is illicit sex acts with minors then every religious group has that problem. No one is exempt.
 
I would’ve preferred a Catholic Bishop. (I know the Windsors aren’t Catholic.) But it doesn’t matter to me. I won’t be watching.
 
The fact that you are defending and promoting an institution that housed, promoted, protected and defended child rapists - on a global scale, no less- means, by your own logic, I must disregard your opinion.

Again, just because the CC did not come out and say, “We’re ok with this” means little to me. Actions, especially those premeditated, underwritten by institutional policy, and defended by all the legal weight various bishops could bring to bear against victims, speak quite loudly enough.

At that point, words are unnecessary, except to say, “We were wrong to act thusly. Please forgive us.”
 
Last edited:
ComplineSanFran said:
Gospel of Jesus. You and your branch of the church may believe differently, but it is still Christ we all follow.
Click to expand...
I concur with and agree with everything @exnihilo is saying.

Exnihilo is preaching the Gospel - the Gospel is truth.

Confirming people in sin isn’t the Gospel - it’s somewhere in between heresy and raw evil.
 
A twice divorced person is marrying into a family who will spend tax payer money on an opulent wedding. The groom may very well be the head of an entire church one day. Certainly a better example could have been made? If not then none of us need to bother with the holiness thing . I hope and pray that they will have a blessed marriage and be devoted to Jesus(and maybe become Catholic) but that is about all I’d look forward to.
 
JSAD said:
A twice divorced person is marrying into a family who will spend tax payer money on an opulent wedding. The groom may very well be the head of an entire church one day. Certainly a better example could have been made? If not then none of us need to bother with the holiness thing . I hope and pray that they will have a blessed marriage and be devoted to Jesus(and maybe become Catholic) but that is about all I’d look forward to.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I believe that Ms Markle was married once before and therefore divorced once before. Perhaps you are thinking of Mr Trump and HIS three wives.

Also, Prince Henry is 6th in line to the British throne. There would have to be a significant tragedy to erase those ahead of him in his lifetime. I doubt he would ever be head (or more accurately Supreme Governor) of the Church of England. I doubt he would ever convert to the Roman Church either. So rest easy.
 
Avoiding the whole sexuality thing, I think it is peculiar he is preaching because she wasn’t and isn’t an Episcopalian. She was baptized C of E just a couple months ago. While they are in communion and it is the mother Church, it strikes me as being full of modern “correctness” . Let’s have the black American speak to show people a biracial American really can be part of this whole little elite world. Typically the person who prepared them for marriage or baptism or who will be a part of their lives after marriage or who is in charge of the church or has some family connection or - for the Windsors - a senior C of E cleric should do the homily. Not a bishop from another country, another branch of the church, with whom they have no substantive connections.
 
I predict everything will be just fine. Just look how well everyone’s getting along.

 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
I concur with and agree with everything @exnihilo is saying.

Exnihilo is preaching the Gospel - the Gospel is truth.

Confirming people in sin isn’t the Gospel - it’s somewhere in between heresy and raw evil.
Click to expand...
Keep up the good work, preaching.

Meanwhile, would you kindly leave us Anglicans/ Episcopalians/ assorted rainbow varieties to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling?

And perhaps consider the positives of refraining from hijacking a non-Catholic thread about an Episcopal bishop preaching at a CoE wedding, in order to heap disparaging comments upon the man.

No one here has been convinced if anything except apparently some Catholics think it’s fine to debase and accuse our clergy of a range of character defects, all whilst hiding behind a Catholic conscience.

Look here. I’m straight, been married 17 years to my beloved spouse, and have a wonderful son in a Christian private school. I do not support abortion except in the most extreme cases, I do not support on-demand divorce, and I’m not a fan of indiscriminate use of birth control, especially hormonal.

I am sympathetic to the appeal for same sex marriage, while still feeling more ought be done to support and bolster “traditional” marriage.

In short, I’m a fairly conservative sort, comparatively speaking.

But the way gays are spoken of here - comparing them to pedophiles, by members of an institution actually guilty of committing and covering such crimes up in the tens of thousands, really turns my stomach.

Tell me now why I should be attracted to such a stunning lack of self-awareness?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top