How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Anna_Scott]

It’s not like the new testament ignored the issue of Homosexuality. St. Paul was very clear and explicit. How exactly do you interprate "Rom 1:26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
Rom 1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Rom 1:28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Rom 1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. "

crazzeto,

I haven’t talked with you for a long time. Glad you joined the discussion. I agree that the N.T. does deal with homosexuality and very directly. The Scripture you posted makes that very clear, at least to me and many conservatives in the Anglican Communion.

The problem is that those in TEC arguing for blessing same-gender unions are also using Scripture to prove their point—in a way that seems to abandon “Tradition,” and place “private interpretation” on display as all the conflicts within the Anglican Communion continue to play out publicly.

Of course Catholics warn of the issues and evils of “private interpretation” on a regular basis. This Catholic point certainly has my attention, as I am struggling to sort through all of this.

Peace to you, Crazzeto,
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

I haven’t talked with you for a long time. Glad you joined the discussion. I agree that the N.T. does deal with the homosexuality and very directly. The Scripture you posted makes that very clear, at least to me and many conservatives in the Anglican Communion.

The problem is that those in TEC arguing for blessing same-gender unions are also using Scripture to prove their point—in a way that seems to abandon “Tradition,” and place “private interpretation” on display as all the conflicts within the Anglican Communion continue to play out publicly.

Of course Catholics warn of the issues and evils of “private interpretation” on a regular basis. This Catholic point certainly has my attention, as I am struggling to sort through all of this.

Peace to you, Crazzeto,
Anna

Wow, it’s been a long time! I hope all has been going well for you Anna!

With regard to TEC, I have no doubts that they would attempt to do exactly as you suggest. Problematically for them however, is the fact that you can’t find anything in scripture that says anything with regards to homosexuality other than that it is an abomination.

You can’t find one verse that says “so and so was gay, and that’s alright because all love is equal”. What they might try to do, is point out the importance of loving your neighbor as you do your self. I think if I were to try and be on the other side of the fence I think that this would be my approch.

God says love your neighbor as your self, and St. Paul says don’t judge. There you go, that’s all the basis you need to justify homosexual “marriage” with in the walls of Holy Mother Church.

Problematically, is the fact that you have to ignore a good portion of the bible in order to draw this misguided conclusion. You have to stop reading at “love your neighbor” and “don’t judge”. Because St. Paul goes on to explain the necessity of judging individual actions (not individuals, individual actions). More over, Christ, who was like us in everything but sin, seems to have made many judgments about many people. You might say “well he’s God”, well fair point, but he’s also true man who could be guilty of undue judgment, but lets try looking at someone who is only man. How about St. Paul, with in the context of the same Letter to the Romans which says “don’t judge”.

In the same letter he makes sweeping judgments, about homosexuality, about the sinfulness of the act, and about what God is doing to those whom he allowed to be carried away with their own sinfulness.

So one would say, if we want to read scripture in context then:

1. Sin matters, and homosexuality is an abomination. There’s no way to sugar coat it, God explicitly says so, and St. Paul goes on to list Homosexuality among crimes such as theivery.
2. Don’t judge, sure the disposition of an individual soul. But if crazzeto decides to knock over a bank, I sure hope Anna Scott would judge him to be making a terrible mistake and say “hey maybe you ought not do that. I think it might break one of the commandments”.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Wow, it’s been a long time! I hope all has been going well for you Anna!

With regard to TEC, I have no doubts that they would attempt to do exactly as you suggest. Problematically for them however, is the fact that you can’t find anything in scripture that says anything with regards to homosexuality other than that it is an abomination.

You can’t find one verse that says “so and so was gay, and that’s alright because all love is equal”. What they might try to do, is point out the importance of loving your neighbor as you do your self. I think if I were to try and be on the other side of the fence I think that this would be my approch.

God says love your neighbor as your self, and St. Paul says don’t judge. There you go, that’s all the basis you need to justify homosexual “marriage” with in the walls of Holy Mother Church.

Problematically, is the fact that you have to ignore a good portion of the bible in order to draw this misguided conclusion. You have to stop reading at “love your neighbor” and “don’t judge”. Because St. Paul goes on to explain the necessity of judging individual actions (not individuals, individual actions). More over, Christ, who was like us in everything but sin, seems to have made many judgments about many people. You might say “well he’s God”, well fair point, but he’s also true man who could be guilty of undue judgment, but lets try looking at someone who is only man. How about St. Paul, with in the context of the same Letter to the Romans which says “don’t judge”.

In the same letter he makes sweeping judgments, about homosexuality, about the sinfulness of the act, and about what God is doing to those whom he allowed to be carried away with their own sinfulness.

So one would say, if we want to read scripture in context then:

1. Sin matters, and homosexuality is an abomination. There’s no way to sugar coat it, God explicitly says so, and St. Paul goes on to list Homosexuality among crimes such as theivery.
2. Don’t judge, sure the disposition of an individual soul. But if crazzeto decides to knock over a bank, I sure hope Anna Scott would judge him to be making a terrible mistake and say “hey maybe you ought not do that. I think it might break one of the commandments”.

crazzeto,

Great comments and I agree completely. As always, you bring “clarity with charity.”

And yes, if you were to “knock over a bank”; I would support the Commandments, without trying to make a Biblical argument to justify your actions. This takes us back to some of my earlier comments about sin and human desire driving “justifications.” Sometimes it takes a “whole lot of finagling” (as we say in Texas) to justify sin using Scripture. You end up with the infamous “cherry picking” approach, which can lead to a justification of just about anything.

Again, so glad to talk with you again,
Anna

 

[The_Sentry]

Gurney,

The Church has never recognized their orders, sacraments or any apostolic succesion. The only one that is recognized is the Orthodox Church. The Anglicans were not only in schism but heresy as well therefore invalid.

LOL

some positions never change

 

[Anna_Scott]

Wow, it’s been a long time! I hope all has been going well for you Anna!

With regard to TEC, I have no doubts that they would attempt to do exactly as you suggest. Problematically for them however, is the fact that you can’t find anything in scripture that says anything with regards to homosexuality other than that it is an abomination.

You can’t find one verse that says “so and so was gay, and that’s alright because all love is equal”. What they might try to do, is point out the importance of loving your neighbor as you do your self. I think if I were to try and be on the other side of the fence I think that this would be my approch.

God says love your neighbor as your self, and St. Paul says don’t judge. There you go, that’s all the basis you need to justify homosexual “marriage” with in the walls of Holy Mother Church.

Problematically, is the fact that you have to ignore a good portion of the bible in order to draw this misguided conclusion. You have to stop reading at “love your neighbor” and “don’t judge”. Because St. Paul goes on to explain the necessity of judging individual actions (not individuals, individual actions). More over, Christ, who was like us in everything but sin, seems to have made many judgments about many people. You might say “well he’s God”, well fair point, but he’s also true man who could be guilty of undue judgment, but lets try looking at someone who is only man. How about St. Paul, with in the context of the same Letter to the Romans which says “don’t judge”.

In the same letter he makes sweeping judgments, about homosexuality, about the sinfulness of the act, and about what God is doing to those whom he allowed to be carried away with their own sinfulness.

So one would say, if we want to read scripture in context then:

1. Sin matters, and homosexuality is an abomination. There’s no way to sugar coat it, God explicitly says so, and St. Paul goes on to list Homosexuality among crimes such as theivery.
2. Don’t judge, sure the disposition of an individual soul. But if crazzeto decides to knock over a bank, I sure hope Anna Scott would judge him to be making a terrible mistake and say “hey maybe you ought not do that. I think it might break one of the commandments”.

crazzeto,

Great comments and I agree completely. As always, you bring “clarity with charity.”

And yes, if you were to “knock over a bank”; I would support the Commandments, without trying to make a Biblical argument to justify your actions. This takes us back to some of my earlier comments about sin and human desire driving “justifications.” Sometimes it takes a “whole lot of finagling” (as we say in Texas) to justify sin using Scripture. You end up with the infamous “cherry picking” approach, which can lead to a justification of just about anything.

Again, so glad to talk with you again,
Anna

Crazzeto,

A rather humorous situation came to mind, when I was thinking about how TEC is trying to appeal to Scripture, combined with being born/created with certain predispositions and all the justifications that follow that line of thinking.

When my son (who is now grown) was in about the 2nd or 3rd grade, I received a call from his teacher about the excessive number of times he had to sign the “conduct book.” The teacher had a system. If a student misbehaved, they had to sign the conduct book. A certain number of signings led to calling the parent.

When My son got home from school, I had him sit down for a talk about the call from his teacher, his conduct in class, and his frequent signing of the “conduct book.” After I told him what I needed to say as a parent; my son replied, “But, Mom, signing the conduct book is who I am.” I was startled by his response, to say the least. It was as if he was born to sign the conduct book and that was that. Comically and tragically; I see the same justification for same-gender unions.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,

A rather humorous situation came to mind, when I was thinking about how TEC is trying to appeal to Scripture, combined with being born/created with certain predispositions and all the justifications that follow that line of thinking.

When my son (who is now grown) was in about the 2nd or 3rd grade, I received a call from his teacher about the excessive number of times he had to sign the “conduct book.” The teacher had a system. If a student misbehaved, they had to sign the conduct book. A certain number of signings led to calling the parent.

When My son got home from school, I had him sit down for a talk about the call from his teacher, his conduct in class, and his frequent signing of the “conduct book.” After I told him what I needed to say as a parent; my son replied, “But, Mom, signing the conduct book is who I am.” I was startled by his response, to say the least. It was as if he was born to sign the conduct book and that was that. Comically and tragically; I see the same justification for same-gender unions.

Anna

Anna,

I have to laugh because if I’m completely honest I would have probably given a similar answer to my own mother! What a humerous story, but yes only in so far as you keep out of mind that indeed that is typically the justification for this. How sad.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

I have to laugh because if I’m completely honest I would have probably given a similar answer to my own mother! What a humerous story, but yes only in so far as you keep out of mind that indeed that is typically the justification for this. How sad.

crazzeto,

Your “confession” did make me laugh. Boys can be very creative in getting out of a tight jam with “Mom.”

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My own son has been signing his “conduct book” lately with frequency. His life isn’t pretty tonight

Crazzeto,

A rather humorous situation came to mind, when I was thinking about how TEC is trying to appeal to Scripture, combined with being born/created with certain predispositions and all the justifications that follow that line of thinking.

When my son (who is now grown) was in about the 2nd or 3rd grade, I received a call from his teacher about the excessive number of times he had to sign the “conduct book.” The teacher had a system. If a student misbehaved, they had to sign the conduct book. A certain number of signings led to calling the parent.

When My son got home from school, I had him sit down for a talk about the call from his teacher, his conduct in class, and his frequent signing of the “conduct book.” After I told him what I needed to say as a parent; my son replied, “But, Mom, signing the conduct book is who I am.” I was startled by his response, to say the least. It was as if he was born to sign the conduct book and that was that. Comically and tragically; I see the same justification for same-gender unions.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

My own son has been signing his “conduct book” lately with frequency. His life isn’t pretty tonight

I feel for you gurney.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Luke’s next few days are definitely not going to be marshmallows and Hungry Hungry Hippos, trust me…

I feel for you gurney.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . Indeed, splintering takes us farther from Christian unity. That is one reason many conservative Episcopalians are not breaking from TEC, but working from within to fight for Christian orthodoxy. . . .There are Episcopal Priests and Bishops who are dedicated to Christ and the True Gospel. . .

I won’t convert, unless I can embrace Catholicism with my whole heart–because I would be expected to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra. . .

. . . .there is a “profound faith and emotional element that pervades our hearts.” We know Christ. We know the living and active Word of God that pierces to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow. In the end, our intellect falls short. It is the Spirit that searches us out and intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words—while we groan inwardly as we await redemption. . . .

. . . .this thread has turned into a bit of a group therapy session logging the trials of the Christian journey. I suppose the turmoil in the Anglican Communion has had an effect on all of us treading water between the Tiber and the Anglican shore.

. . .in the case of Rome and the East, both accuse the other of “Schism.” . . .“schism” is a matter of perspective, and is not necessarily related to sin. Though sin can lead to a departure from Christian orthodoxy.

. . . Anglican Communion is suffering from a case of “This is what I want to do, now let me create a way to make it Biblical.” But such tactics are not confined to liberal Anglican thought. These tactics can be found in many Churches. And–I think as individuals, regardless of Church affiliation, we often fight the temptation to justify what we want, rather than yielding to the teachings of our Lord. . . .

. . . . .The Christian journey can be a perilous one at times. It’s been so gut-wrenching, I’m surprised I have any guts left.

. . .CAF has been a lifeline for me for nearly two years. I’ve worked through some major faith issues with some very “real” people, many of whom are Catholics. I’ll take up for CAF any day of the week.

. . .the Catholic OP is asking a question that is very much alive within the Anglican Communion. There is a crisis in the Anglican Communion. This thread has been as much about Anglicans dealing with the issues creating the crisis, as about answering Catholic questions on the crisis. Sometimes these discussions get heated, no doubt. Most of us are very passionate about what we believe. But, at least we are talking. . . . .

. . . .And those outside the Anglican Communion have a format here to “opine” about Anglican issues or any other issues that affect Christianity or our relationship with other religions.

Ultimately, all things within Christendom have some effect on all Christians. . . . .

. . . . . .The fact is that some Anglicans, such as myself, lean far more towards Catholicism, and even Orthodoxy, than Protestantism. So, of course the departure from Christian orthodoxy occurring within the Anglican Communion will give cause to seriously consider Catholicism. . . . . .

. . . . .The idea of yielding to the Magisterium certainly has merit and many times I think it would be a welcome relief.

I was just talking to my sister recently about the irony of my feelings about Anglicanism. I love being able to openly disagree in a discussion or study at Church—and we are allowed to disagree, even with a Priest. Ironically, it is that very freedom to disagree that has opened the door to the abandonment of much of Christian orthodoxy. Kind of a “catch 22.” IOW: I like it when I can disagree; but I don’t like it when others disagree with what I believe to be orthodoxy. Makes me a hypocrite right out of the gate.

Anglicanism’s Three-Legged Stool is supposed to be “Scripture, Tradition, Reason.” But now it seems more like “Scripture held hostage by private interpretation,” “Tradition redefined to suit human desire,” and “Reason that doesn’t seem so reasonable.” At least that’s the way it feels on an emotional level.

Of course there is the argument that Anglicanism’s Three-Legged Stool has always prevented any absolutes in theology, and the gate to the “stalls” has always been open. It just took the horses awhile to realize the gate was open. Now the horses have bolted. . . . . .

. . . .I agree that the N.T. does deal with homosexuality and very directly. The Scripture you posted makes that very clear, at least to me and many conservatives in the Anglican Communion.

The problem is that those in TEC arguing for blessing same-gender unions are also using Scripture to prove their point—in a way that seems to abandon “Tradition,” and place “private interpretation” on display as all the conflicts within the Anglican Communion continue to play out publicly.

Of course Catholics warn of the issues and evils of “private interpretation” on a regular basis. This Catholic point certainly has my attention, as I am struggling to sort through all of this.

**Any more thoughts from anyone?

Anna**

 

[PRmerger]

**Any more thoughts from anyone?

Anna**

My quick response: my objection to TEC is that it seems to have taken Catholicism and re-worked it to be palatable.

IOW, it has created a religion in our own image, rather than God’s.

In my opinion, if we’re in a religion in which everything makes sense, we agree with everything, there’s nothing that troubles us (such as that which TEC seems to proclaim), then it’s not the religion revealed to us by God.

For logic would dictate that if there is a God, and if He has revealed His Will to us, it’s not going to be something that we would naturally want to conform to (because of our flawed human nature). It would take an act of the will. An act of assent. An act of obedience.

If there’s nothing in our religion that’s a little discomforting, then, I posit, it’s not the religion revealed by Christ, but rather a religion we’ve re-worked to conform to our image.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Quoted from the thread entitled, “The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style”
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=524843

Fair enough. To clarify, my line of thought stemmed from Tim’s inclusion of them in a discusison of episcopal authority, as I perceive the Angilcans to have moved away from that paradigm.

Well, cfrancis, I guess this is me “not posting anymore on this thread.” (The Early Church Fathers Protestant-Style)

I think I misunderstood your intentions. It was the comment about Anglican “fragmentation and slide into irrelevance” that bothered me. True, there are splits happening and we’re in a state of crisis. Yet, it’s not easy to hear someone say we are on a “slide into irrelevance.”

TEC is governed according to episcopal polity with its own system of canon law, though I’d say you are right that the Episcopate (ironically, incorporated into the title of TEC) is in a bit of a mess.

The real question is, “Will Christians with such differing beliefs remain within the Anglican Communion?” For more discussion on this, please go to the Thread entitled: How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong? Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=532185

My post #423 is a bit of a summary of my thoughts on the thread topic up to this point. I think your thoughts on the Episcopate would add something interesting to the thread.

I’ll copy this post to that thread.

Peace,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think there’s a lot about Anglicanism that hasn’t already been said by most of us. It’s in a sad state of disrepair. And I think it’s not just Anglicanism. I’ve read a lot of articles about the fact that the “mainline” Protestant churches are dying on the vine while the new evangelical non-denoms and megachurches are on the rise. It’s really too bad. I see it out “in the field.” My sons and daughter attend a Lutheran school. The attendance numbers at the school are good but the poor little parish is just struggling to pay the bills. They have just a few hundred parishoners and it was once a proud, thriving LCMS parish.

St. Paul’s, my charming little ole Anglican parish is really in decline. Besides being sued to death by TEC, they have just 300 parishoners and there are practically no children and very few teens. You could number all the kids and teens on two hands it seems. The congregation is all grey-haired and mostly over 60, heck really more over 75. The Rite I early service is staunchly senior citizens. The Rite II is mostly 50’s and up. At St. Paul’s a Mass with 40 year olds is the “youth” service IMO!

The old mainliners are on the way out. Many closing their doors. The evangelicals are on the up. I notice around here non-descript groups like “Grace Community Church,” which is a non-denominational church, is HUGE now. It has grown into thousands and thousands of parishoners. The Evangelical Free Church, “Gateway Bible Church” and Assembly of God are all the super biggies in my area. Of course the only opposition they have are-----THE CATHOLICS who number in the 7,000 families range with many, many unregistered folks.

People don’t seem to want a denomination now. They seem to intentionally want vagueness. They want to hear about Jesus and a Bible lesson. They don’t seem to care about Luther’s views or commentaries or theology. They don’t want the Book of Common prayer or Lancelot Andrewes and Thomas Hooker. They could care less about Calvin or Bucer or the Wesleys. They want a vague feel-good message of hope with no strings attached I think. And I think that’s sad.

In the end Anglicanism was a political state church of England that spread out into the big world around us and after a few hundred years it has been swallowed up by either Catholicism or Evangelicalism or downright atheism. Its political nature in England led to its unavoidable embrace of secular, watered-down values. The emergence of women “priests” and homosexual rights and moral relativism was inevitable given the secular links as a political church. It’s too bad. Yet with all its ruffles, its wrinkles, its pimples, it has always maintained a charm. For me it was a thinking-man’s church where I could disagree from time to time and not be branded a “cafeteria Anglican” or a traitor or coward. Its liturgy has always been dignified and lovely, almost poetic. Its clergy can be quite wonderful—in my case here for sure, and there is a charm, a certain something that I came to love about it. Anglicanism is almost like Rod Stewart. It has a raspy, almost ratty voice but you want to keep listening and you can’t quite explain why. I think back to singing Christmas carols in that charming little brick church into the midnight hours, coffee hours, my kids in the christmas play dressed as wise men and Caleb dressed like a sheep, Father James letting my kids ring the church bell, a lot of hours talking with my rector, the bishop making time to stay in the parish hall and talk to me for 90 minutes straight, house calls from Anglican priests, hospital visits to my family from Anglican priests, good times…like I said, there’s an emotional element to it all, sentimental…and yet I can’t tell you any good memories hardly from the Catholic side of things except for Father Gerry, a priest since moved on, who married Kate and I again in order to give us a sacramental marriage. I’ve had a TON of bad experiences in the Catholic Church…and yet I keep going back…

 

[Contarini]

My quick response: my objection to TEC is that it seems to have taken Catholicism and re-worked it to be palatable.

I have huge problems with this too, but one does have to ask the question, “palatable to whom”? Obviously not to a lot of people. The presently dominant faction in TEC is in fact willing to stand by their convictions even if many people find them unpalatable. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that they are just accommodating to the culture–though of course they are accommodating to the culture of the liberal intelligentsia.

IOW, it has created a religion in our own image, rather than God’s.

In my opinion, if we’re in a religion in which everything makes sense, we agree with everything, there’s nothing that troubles us (such as that which TEC seems to proclaim), then it’s not the religion revealed to us by God.

Yes, but the liberal response to this is that gay (and for that matter female) priests seem to trouble a lot of people. I’ve heard many folks on this forum talk about how sick the sight of female priests made them. You assume that that kind of reaction to female priests or to gays is a good and natural one, but liberals would argue that precisely that kind of “intolerant” reaction is an expression of sinful accommodation to cultural norms. A lot of liberals I know see themselves as engaged in a continual struggle with their tendencies toward exclusivity, toward catering to the powerful rather than the marginalized, etc. Generally, the more extreme they are in their commitment to liberal social causes, the more likely this is to be true, so that in many ways I respect radical liberals more than moderate ones (who often really do seem to be just accepting those liberal positions that are culturally popular).

I’m being a “devil’s advocate” here–what you describe is precisely what troubles me about the Episcopal Church. But when I’ve tried to articulate this, this is the point liberals have made to me. And I think it’s one that has to be taken seriously.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

St. Paul’s, my charming little ole Anglican parish is really in decline. Besides being sued to death by TEC, they have just 300 parishoners and there are practically no children and very few teens. You could number all the kids and teens on two hands it seems. The congregation is all grey-haired and mostly over 60, heck really more over 75.

My parish is in the same boat–except that we have only about 40 parishioners! I play the organ for free because we can’t afford to pay an organist. The priest just took a salary cut at his own initiative, and he was already being underpaid for what he does–he’s officially part time but you could hardly tell.

It’s the conservative parishes that have suffered most. The liberal parishes/dioceses seem hardly to notice that there’s a schism going on, because their constituencies like what is happening. But in conservative areas people don’t want to be affiliated with TEC, even if the local parish/diocese doesn’t approve of what the national church is doing.

Yet with all its ruffles, its wrinkles, its pimples, it has always maintained a charm. For me it was a thinking-man’s church where I could disagree from time to time and not be branded a “cafeteria Anglican” or a traitor or coward. Its liturgy has always been dignified and lovely, almost poetic. Its clergy can be quite wonderful—in my case here for sure, and there is a charm, a certain something that I came to love about it. Anglicanism is almost like Rod Stewart. It has a raspy, almost ratty voice but you want to keep listening and you can’t quite explain why. I think back to singing Christmas carols in that charming little brick church into the midnight hours, coffee hours, my kids in the christmas play dressed as wise men and Caleb dressed like a sheep, Father James letting my kids ring the church bell, a lot of hours talking with my rector, the bishop making time to stay in the parish hall and talk to me for 90 minutes straight, house calls from Anglican priests, hospital visits to my family from Anglican priests, good times…like I said, there’s an emotional element to it all, sentimental

Exactly.

See, we do agree sometimes

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anna, just to let ya know, your PM box is 100% full so any messages I or other posters try to send you will get kicked back to us. Clear some space out of those X-files of yours!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, just to let ya know, your PM box is 100% full so any messages I or other posters try to send you will get kicked back to us. Clear some space out of those X-files of yours!

Done. Guess I’ve been a busy little messenger lately.

 

[The_Sentry]

For me it was a thinking-man’s church where I could disagree from time to time and not be branded a “cafeteria Anglican” or a traitor or coward. Its liturgy has always been dignified and lovely, almost poetic. Its clergy can be quite wonderful—in my case here for sure, and there is a charm, a certain something that I came to love about it. Anglicanism is almost like Rod Stewart. It has a raspy, almost ratty voice but you want to keep listening and you can’t quite explain why. I think back to singing Christmas carols in that charming little brick church into the midnight hours, coffee hours, my kids in the christmas play dressed as wise men and Caleb dressed like a sheep, Father James letting my kids ring the church bell, a lot of hours talking with my rector, the bishop making time to stay in the parish hall and talk to me for 90 minutes straight, house calls from Anglican priests, hospital visits to my family from Anglican priests, good times…like I said, there’s an emotional element to it all, sentimental…and yet I can’t tell you any good memories hardly from the Catholic side of things except for Father Gerry, a priest since moved on, who married Kate and I again in order to give us a sacramental marriage. I’ve had a TON of bad experiences in the Catholic Church…and yet I keep going back…

Great thoughts here Gurney

 

[PRmerger]

I have huge problems with this too, but one does have to ask the question, “palatable to whom”?

Well, palatable to the liberal intelligentsia, of course, just like you mentioned.

The presently dominant faction in TEC is in fact willing to stand by their convictions even if many people find them unpalatable.

Fair enough. I suppose they’re proposing that God has revealed this and even if they don’t agree they must proclaim its truth?

Perhaps this may be true, but, in reality, I’ve never heard a member of TEC proclaim that he disagreed with, say, the teaching on priestesses, but that if that’s what God had revealed he was going to obey.