episcopal

[Nella]

Nella, that dog just won’t hunt.

You seem to like to bring up the horrible actions of some Catholic priests. Fine, except for the narrowness of your focus on it. It was horrible, no question. It was not well addressed by quite a number in authority. However no one ever stood up and said, authoritatively, that there was either nothing wrong with what was done, or that it was, in fact, alright.

Compare the Anglican situation. First off, no one has overall authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Anglican Communion. If nothing else, this has been amply demonstrated by recent events. Also, there is incredible variance between the national constituents of the Anglican Communion on these two questions, and there has been incredible variance within many of the national constituents.

So, in the US, we see a presiding bishop going all out to further these two things, while some bishops support her, and some oppose her, and some priests follow their bishops on the issue and some don’t. In Canada, the Anglicans have said that it’s not agqainst core doctrine, but the bishops, have not “affirmed” it when given the opportunity. (They haven’t forbidden it, either, and some allow it.) You can use the phrase “Anglican church teaching,” but in practise, the phrase has no meaning. There IS NO consistent and authoritative teaching in the Anglican Communion or many of its constituant national communities, full stop!

No one, not even those who dropped the ball in dealing with it, ever said that the horrible actions of some priests was right. Those in the highest authority made no bones about it being wrong, wrong, wrong. But in the Anglican Communion, we find those who indeed say that both gay unions and ordaining active homosexuals is right, and no one can effectively contradict them.

The actions of your priest, though probably laudable, only serve to illiustrate that Anglicanism has, by and large, evolved into a rather loose confederation of congregational assemblies, at least in the Western world. Speaking of “Anglican teaching” in such a contest is simply vacuous.

It is a bad thing to sin. It is a worse thing to declare that that which the Church has always taught is sin is not a sin. That’s what’s happening in Anglicanism, with impunity, and it can’t be stopped.

Blessings,

Gerry

I certainly can respect the way that you posted here; thank you for it. I understand what you are saying and you are correct insomuch of what the Episcopal church, more namely the Diocese of New Hampshire has done. But, i can assure you that this isn’t washing (not one bubble of it) with the worldwide church. This is why the Anglican Primates around the globe have given the Episcopal Church here in the US a virtual altimatum to either affect a moratorium on these unions and ordinations and comply with what the Windsor Report has stated or risk being made to walk apart from the Anglican church worldwide. Again i say, the Anglican church worldwide does NOT condone any of this and it is against church teaching. If these behaviors are accepted by the Primates, i assure you, i will leave the Anglican church and God knows where I will be worshipping.

 

[Nella]

Nella,

There has been issues around pedophelia in the Anglican Communion as well, not to the same extent as in the the RCC but it did happen, and just as in the RCC it was swept under the carpet until survivors came out years later.

You like to point out (correctly) that the Anglican Communion as a whole is against gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals etc. Yet when it is pointed out that the RCC is against pedophelia you skoff and accuse people of wanting to avoid the issue. However just as the ECUSA is just a small branch of the Anglican Communion and is not an example of what Anglicans believe, the sinful behaviour of the pedophile priests and those who covered up their actions is the behaviour of a minority and not indicative of the teachings of the RCC in general.

The Anglican Communion has its problems, and in my opinion does need to set a clear and binding statement of faith an morals that all member churches must agree and adhere to. Do not mistake this for me saying the Anglican Church should put something like the Papacy in place. I like that each Bishop only has authority in his own diocese. However I think that if people are to call themselves Anglicans, they should have to agree to a simple sttement on faith and morals - and that statement should affirm the orthodox Christian position.

God Bless,

Daryl.

P.S. I am an Anglican.

I must agree with you. Very well put.

 

[Dauphin]

Your churches defilement against its children is as real as the horrific crime itself. Don’t you dare call it a smokescreen for anything. It is what it is and the truth is, they didn’t deal with it when it was manifesting. I couldn’t care less what the church says about it. It happened in living colr and the church ducked its responsibility. Don’t attempt to draw attention elsewhere.

Gay unions and ordaining actively homosexual clergy is against Anglican church teaching. Just try and drag that wet dog onto the carpet of my church and see what our priest would do.

The church did defile children, nor did it fail in its responsibility. The church is the bride of Christ. It is incapable of error.

The things you’re referring to are human sins and errors, and you won’t ever hear me defending them.

The reason I called this a smokescreen is because it distracts from the issue at hand, which is outright heresy without consequence within the Anglican communion.

 

[Nella]

The church did defile children, nor did it its responsibility. The church is the bride of Christ. It is incapable of error.

The things you’re referring to are human sins and errors, and you won’t ever hear me defending them.

The reason I called this a smokescreen is because it distracts from the issue at hand, which is outright heresy without consequence within the Anglican communion.

You are entitled to your opinion and I’ll tell you that I disagree with you vehimately.

 

[rr1213]

The church did defile children, nor did it its responsibility. The church is the bride of Christ. It is incapable of error.

The things you’re referring to are human sins and errors, and you won’t ever hear me defending them.

The reason I called this a smokescreen is because it distracts from the issue at hand, which is outright heresy without consequence within the Anglican communion.

The avoidance of responsibility by asserting that the Catholic Church did not do this is merely semantics. If we could prove–which we can’t–that such sin was purposely directed by the Pope, through Bishops to the Priests you’d still assert that the Church has not responsibility. Note that I am NOT saying that…JPII and Benedict are Godly men who would never condone such sin, but if in some imaginary world they did you’d still deny that there was any action by the Church itself. That’s what is nuts.

 

[Dauphin]

The avoidance of responsibility by asserting that the Catholic Church did not do this is merely semantics. If we could prove–which we can’t–that such sin was purposely directed by the Pope, through Bishops to the Priests you’d still assert that the Church has not responsibility. Note that I am NOT saying that…JPII and Benedict are Godly men who would never condone such sin, but if in some imaginary world they did you’d still deny that there was any action by the Church itself. That’s what is nuts.

No. It’s not nuts at all, as long as you trust in Christ’s words that “the gates of hell” will not prevail against His church. The abuse of children was not an act of the magesterium. These were horrific sins committed by people who abused the priesthood. It has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the faith or on the infallibility of the Church.

 

[Nella]

No. It’s not nuts at all, as long as you trust in Christ’s words that “the gates of hell” will not prevail against His church. The abuse of children was not an act of the magesterium. These were horrific sins committed by people who abused the priesthood. It has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the faith or on the infallibility of the Church.

using the the term infallibility in the same realm as child sexual abuse is frightening to say the least.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

using the the term infallibility in the same realm as child sexual abuse is frightening to say the least.

All right, now please get a grip.

Unless someone does not know what impeccability is, and that the doctrine of infallibility does not claim impeccibility, this is consistent with a deliberate smear.

As for your claims about the stand of the Anglican Communion, is that the organization where not even the determinations of the Lambeth Conference are binding on anyone, or any of the constituent national provinces, and that is on the verge of fracturing into (at least) two pieces? For the love of Mike, Anglicans cannot even agree on what priesthood is (some affirm, some deny, a sacerdotal nature) or whether or not it can be conferred on women.

There’s a difference between doctrine and teaching, and the opinion that prevails after either a majority vote or a power struggle.

 

[Contarini]

There’s a difference between doctrine and teaching, and the opinion that prevails after either a majority vote or a power struggle.

Are you saying that the Nicene Creed (which became the faith of the Church as a result of two different majority votes with a long power struggle in between) is not “doctrine and teaching”?

The Anglican Communion does indeed have a very loose authority structure, and it remains to be seen whether attempts to create a more authoritative set of “instruments of unity” will prevail. The Episcopal Church clearly has a vested interest in preventing this from happening.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

Your churches defilement against its children is as real as the horrific crime itself. Don’t you dare call it a smokescreen for anything. It is what it is and the truth is, they didn’t deal with it when it was manifesting. I couldn’t care less what the church says about it. It happened in living colr and the church ducked its responsibility. Don’t attempt to draw attention elsewhere.

Gay unions and ordaining actively homosexual clergy is against Anglican church teaching. Just try and drag that wet dog onto the carpet of my church and see what our priest would do.

Nella.
Why don’t you just have one hate filled, nasty, disgusting post, letting out all your anti-Catolic venom, so every one here can estimate your contriubtion to Christian understanding and communication?

peace

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Are you saying that the Nicene Creed (which became the faith of the Church as a result of two different majority votes with a long power struggle in between) is not “doctrine and teaching”?

The Anglican Communion does indeed have a very loose authority structure, and it remains to be seen whether attempts to create a more authoritative set of “instruments of unity” will prevail. The Episcopal Church clearly has a vested interest in preventing this from happening.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

All right, now please get a grip.

Unless someone does not know what impeccability is, and that the doctrine of infallibility does not claim impeccibility, this is consistent with a deliberate smear.

As for your claims about the stand of the Anglican Communion, is that the organization where not even the determinations of the Lambeth Conference are binding on anyone, or any of the constituent national provinces, and that is on the verge of fracturing into (at least) two pieces? For the love of Mike, Anglicans cannot even agree on what priesthood is (some affirm, some deny, a sacerdotal nature) or whether or not it can be conferred on women.

There’s a difference between doctrine and teaching, and the opinion that prevails after either a majority vote or a power struggle.

I have been on this web site for about a month. Nella has consistently raised this issue, confusing impeccability with infallibility, as you say.

I don’t know what kind of ‘priest’ she has in her (his) church, but she (he) drags in this smear about sins of priests about twice a week.

I bet she (he) also believes in the death penalty.

(I wish we could figure out whether Nella is a man or a woman.)

We have to remind each other that there are people who are consistently anti-Catholic, and will remain so. Some of them are here on this website because they fearful that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Adam was a man, and he was a sinner. Look what harm he did to the human race, and if she (he) wants to direct her (his) rage, point fingers at Adam and Eve.

peace

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Are you saying that the Nicene Creed (which became the faith of the Church as a result of two different majority votes with a long power struggle in between) is not “doctrine and teaching”?
…
Edwin

Councils of the Church do not, and never have, decided the truth by majority vote. Exercising the teaching authority of the Church, they determine how to enunciate the contents of the Deposit of the Faith. Creeds arose because it became necessary to clarify the contents of the Deposit when they were called into question.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I have been on this web site for about a month. Nella has consistently raised this issue, confusing impeccability with infallibility, as you say.
…
We have to remind each other that there are people who are consistently anti-Catholic, and will remain so.
…
peace

Yes, the false irenicism of the posts is a dead giveaway for nefarious motives.

And we should also remind anti-Catholics that they should not expect a free ride in these parts. In some places, they may be seen as liberated, or progressive, or courageously thoughtful, or whatever. Not here, though.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mgrfin]

Yes, the false irenicism of the posts is a dead giveaway for nefarious motives.

And we should also remind anti-Catholics that they should not expect a free ride in these parts. In some places, they may be seen as liberated, or progressive, or courageously thoughtful, or whatever. Not here, though.

Blessings,

Gerry

Well said. There are several that consistently profess strong anti-catholic feelings. They should know that we profess that the Catholic Church has been given the full deposit of faith, and has protected this deposit from the evils of error and heresy.

I am willing to listen what any has to say, but communication is not to be confused with confrontation.

peace