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.
Restrictions were placed on their participation in some Communion actions. They were not suspended from membership.
 
I’m getting ratty, and it isn’t good for my health. Time I had a cuppa and a good book.
 
Do read the article (though CNN is not the best source). They were sanctioned by the Communion; not to take part in some of the internal working of the Communion, and not to be able to participate in international meetings as representing the Communion. They were told to stand in the corner. For the most part no one paid attention.
 
Last edited:
Definition of suspension

1 : the act of suspending : the state or period of being suspended: such as
a : temporary removal (as from office or privileges)

Sounds like a suspension to me. Removing from membership wouldn’t be suspension but expulsion. Whatever it is called I would say it is an impaired communion.
 
And I have work to do.

Exnihlo needs to just give up. At this point he is just trolling. His arguments are based on an erroneous understanding of the events. He’s just arguing for argument’s sake now.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Exnihlo needs to just give up. At this point he is just trolling. His arguments are based on an erroneous understanding of the events. He’s just arguing for argument’s sake now.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. So I respond to someone else’s speculation about reasons and I’m a troll? I have no erroneous understanding of events. I don’t claim to know reasons. I am not disputing facts we all seem to agree on. I’ve just commented on a speculated reason and pointed out how that would be unjust. If you don’t agree with my conclusion argue against it with logic and not mere dislike of the conclusion.
 
exnihilo said:
If you don’t agree with my conclusion argue against it with logic and not mere dislike of the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Oh, I did as did others. Then you shifted to Rick Warren and Episcopal disciplinary actions.

Like I said, I have work to do. Feel free to argue with yourself.
 
Oh, irrespective of this sanctioning, which has nothing to do with impaired communion, with the Communion, some of the Churches in the Communion are in impaired communion with TEC.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Oh, I did as did others. Then you shifted to Rick Warren and Episcopal disciplinary actions.
Click to expand...
I didn’t shift. I was offering reasons and examples. If you don’t like the ones I offered then use the Catholic example.
mrsdizzyd said:
Like I said, I have work to do. Feel free to argue with yourself.
Click to expand...
You could just not comment. But you can’t do that huh?
 
Some folks will certainly do so, and their assessment of the value of the continued effort likely effects the point at which that occurs.
 
An excellent article. Covers a lot of stuff I’ve had to do, over many years, on the nature and composition of the Anglican Communion. And other stuff. Thanks.
 
The article fails to mention that, as she was not previously baptized, her first marriage was a natural marriage, not a sacramental one. The Catholic Church recognizes that natural marriages can be dissolved.
 
The children of Earls other than the heir obviously who becomes the Earl himself in time…

Of course the British definition of nobility was always very limited. More so than continental nobility. You had hoards of landed gentry who were aristocrats for all practical intents and purposes, but without the title and legal privileges.
 
Firstly, I posted the article saying that was my position - meaning that as the article says, we don’t know details about her first marriage, we don’t know whether her marriage was annulled, just like we don’t know details of other people’s marriages, and therefore I am willing to hope for the best…like the priest in the article said.
Secondly, I didn’t know that natural marriages can be dissolved simply by the fact that they are natural marriages. I always understood that marriage between two unbaptised people was valid.
I really don’t want to get into any more debates, though 🙂 if you know better, then go with that.
Edit: typo
 
Last edited:
ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND (OUP), I guess?

My copy runs to 745 pages, not counting the fold-in map affixed to the back free end paper.

Daunting, that does look, indeed…
 
Last edited:
It’s not Britain but Swedish Princess Madeleine married (Catholic) Mr Christopher O’Neill in 2013.
The wedding was celebrated by two Royal court CoS priests, one of which had studied liturgy at the papal university Angelicus. I presume they had dispension from our local cardinal Arborelius.
They have 3 kids since so probably been dutiful to the requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top