Hey so I went thought this with my Catholic husband. Really you can’t get any good idea from us here because it depends on your (the Catholic) bishop or how it has to work. Talk to both priests and see whats up. I know though that the Episcopal church and Bishop shouldn’t have a problem…just talk to the priests…they dont bite
Quite frankly, I don’t think Anglicans are any better at being “backwards looking” than we Catholics are (worse, if you’re talking about the ECUSA portion of Anglicanism). But maybe we can help each other it that regard?
Perhaps that was in response to a particular issue? Or maybe the priest misunderstood your question?
That says a lot of the Episcopalians in Vermont. Would you say that if the Church did something a certain way for a couple of thousand years that it would qualify as a tradition? If it did then according to your view that should be what you look to for spiritual leadership regarding that topic or matter. So for example, if the Church ordained men exclusively for all that time and Episcopals disregard that tradition and then say they look to tradition for leadership they have contradicted themselves. What is amazing is they do it all the time and don’t seem to notice. When Catholics read what Anglican/Episcopal leadership says or writes it is incoherent. Things like we are completely separate in communion. If they looked to tradition they would be Catholic.
Again, this could only come out of the mind of an Episcopal Anglican. It is laughable. The Church throughout her history condemned sexual perversion. To say that eary Christians would not care about gay marriage is insane. It would have been inconceivable to them, but the Church has always condemned sexual deviancy as evil. To claim otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Again, with which Episcopalians should we have a discussion?
Maybe she’s saying, put that book down and pay attention or I will smack you with this stick.
That picture is seriously disturbing without the caption.Maybe she’s saying, put that book down and pay attention or I will smack you with this stick.
They want to be taken seriously. They want people to be respectful of them. It is impossible to look at these photos and not see how absurd this group has made itself. They expect Catholics to recognize their farcical orders and “work with” them.
Come now, doesn’t anyone here know the Hartman-Lovitz skit …
As a former Anglican, I would NEVER have been so frivolous as to say the Catholic Church defected from the Anglican Church or that the Roman Church defected from the Catholic Church. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury in my youth (Michael Ramsey) averred that “The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church on earth.”
Williams sees his role as keeping all the crumpets on the tea table. There aren’t many people standing in line for the job because it is impossible. The primacy of the Abp of Canterbury is “first among equals.” Look where that gets you. It means: nobody can tell ME what to do, even if you’re the guy with the biggest point on your hat.
I guess it begs the question why you are on this subforum when you find our selves so “farsical” as you put it. Apparently you just enjoy going around and making incredibly nasty and ugly remarks against others for the fun of it. I’m sure that is well in keeping with what YOU were taught as a Roman Catholic. And you seriously wonder why people have harsh things to say about Roman Catholics? Your behavior is a poster for people to leave the church for more sane and compassionate environs. Shame on you.
I’m not sure what you point is to me. I am very tired of being insulted here consistently with uncharatible remarks meant to make it so clear that the poster believes the Anglican faith is somehow utterly worthless. To consistently make fun of the tenets of other’s is both unkind and unprofitable. I simply responded to suggest that the poster’s words were unworthy of serious reply, since they were meant to only wound and inflict pain. There is a huge issue here with ugly self-righteousness. While everyone likes to think they have chosen the best faith, there is no need to rub the noses of others in the mud while you gleefully tell me how awful my faith is. We can, as I said, reply in kind, though we have not so far saw a need to “defend” our church by this method.
You continue to cast aspersions. It seems the only reason you are here. I see no point in further discussion. You are not here to discuss but to fight. Apparently you and some others are very frightened and see the need to assault everyone who doesn’t agree with you. I’m amazed that you are so confident that God agrees only with you. It must be rarefied air up there indeed.
I thank you for the observation.
I must, though with great sadness for his successors to date, agree with you. The current bearer of the title was, spiritual director to a good friend of mine some 30 years ago (seems like yesterday); had the pressures of current circumstances not placed His Grace in so untenable a position, we might have seen a great showing on his watch.
When the Titanic is sinking you can rearrange the deck chairs and keep the band playing (keep the crumpets on the table) or you can find a lifeboat. That is strong language, but if it is true it is also a charitable warning. When the ship is sinking mincing words won’t help. If the ship is sinking, being silent will not help and denying it will not help. The Anglican ship is foundering and breaking up. That was inevitable. If that is true it has to be made clear. It is full of souls dear to God. They need life jackets and boats and rescue. Making believe all is well is cruel.
