How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[gurneyhalleck1]

He told me he is having some computer issues, getting a new one soon, plus he’s in the middle of building this new library, son in law is coming over, he goes to comic book conventions with his buddy, Roy, a former Marvel comics writer, and he’s generally always reading something! LOL

For a moment there, I thought I was reading GKC. Where is he, btw?
Anna

 

[Contarini]

Homophobic is a typical liberal elitist catch phrase. It’s nonsense. Someone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle is somehow in possession of a phobia of the person who lives that sinful lifestyle. It’s a silly term really. And equating sexism with a rejection of women’s ordination is equally goofy and cliche. It’s just a cheesy attempt to demonize those with whom we disagree. Typical. I heard it from plenty of liberal college professors. Good to know nothing ever changes…

Gurney,

I hope you understand that I was not expressing my own views. I was saying that for liberal Episcopalians, overcoming prejudice is an example of the call of the Gospel being “uncomfortable” and challenging us to be transformed.

You will not find me using these catch-phrases. As I have frequently reminded you, my arguments for women’s ordination are theological and --indeed they rest on the assumption that the Pope is no more a sexist than I am.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That’s quite different, Edwin. The CC proclaims that one must “overcome their homophobic and sexist prejudices”, too.

What we are discussing is whether members of the TEC who are in support of priestesses really feel they are in obedience to God’s will, at the expense of their own.

Yes, but you’re talking about two things:

1. originally you were talking about the Gospel being uncomfortable and challenging, as opposed to palatable. My point is that many liberals I know will talk about struggling with their own tendencies to look down on people who are unlike them, etc. Now personally I think that many such folks are most tempted to look down on fundamentalists and ought to start there, but my point is that this is the language that they use, and it reflects the belief that humans are deeply prejudiced people called by the Gospel to a radically inclusive love that takes great risks in welcoming the disadvantaged and marginalized. Lots of middle-of-the-road liberals do just float with the current. But the people I know for whom “inclusion” of gays is a major issue are passionately committed to the Gospel as they understand it.
2. Now you are defining what it means to be challenged by the uncomfortable mandates of the Gospel as the call to submit one’s will to an external authority. It’s true that liberals don’t generally talk that way. And here’s where I fall in the middle. I think that liberals reduce authority to internal impulses too readily, but that many “conservatives” today see authority as an arbitrary set of rules discerned through some neutral process of exegesis or historical inquiry. I don’t think it works that way either. If, in the end, our own impulses toward truth and goodness do not coincide (on the whole and taking the big picture) with the mandates of a given external authority source, then we have good reason to reject that authority source. This is, I believe, what the Pope was saying at Regensburg. The Logos which enlightens everyone must witness in people’s hearts–otherwise what is going on is not the virtue of faith but a blind surrender which has a proper object only accidentally and might just as easily turn out to be a channel for the demonic.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

He told me he is having some computer issues, getting a new one soon, plus he’s in the middle of building this new library, son in law is coming over, he goes to comic book conventions with his buddy, Roy, a former Marvel comics writer, and he’s generally always reading something! LOL

Library and all house upgrades stopped dead in tracks for a radical rethink, computer is a major irritant, not sure how long I’ll be around, SIL not due for 6 weeks, and I am reading constantly.

Also, I’ve been sick.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Uh oh. A “radical re-think?” What happened…

I’ve fought Gateways, HP, and hated Macs. I got a Dell and never looked back. Love 'em!

I didn’t realize SIL was so far-out…

Sorry to hear you’re sick, Jim. Go grab some Avengers comics and curl up by the fire…that is, if you haven’t already converted the fireplace into a mini library!

Library and all house upgrades stopped dead in tracks for a radical rethink, computer is a major irritant, not sure how long I’ll be around, SIL not due for 6 weeks, and I am reading constantly.

Also, I’ve been sick.

 

[GKC]

Uh oh. A “radical re-think?” What happened…

I’ve fought Gateways, HP, and hated Macs. I got a Dell and never looked back. Love 'em!

I didn’t realize SIL was so far-out…

Sorry to hear you’re sick, Jim. Go grab some Avengers comics and curl up by the fire…that is, if you haven’t already converted the fireplace into a mini library!

My sister convinced me I was taking the wrong approach. She’s done all I was hoping to do, adding on to and remodeling her place, and more, and I usually defer to her experience. I must begin again.

Fireplace is, in fact, full of boxes of dvds and some audio cassettes.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly. And that’s all I was trying to say to PR. Faith is the prime ingredient that moves us all to religion—Catholic, Protestant, Othodox, heck even Hindu or Muslim. Our faith sustains us because it’s not about ‘proof.’

If that’s all you were saying, gurney, then I have no problem with your argument.

However, that’s quite a different sentiment than what you proposed below:

And you’re correct, Johnny, **that reason doesn’t enter into this equation. ** The Catholic is to believe it because the pope said so, end of story. That is the way Catholicism functions. Pope declares, Catholic accepts. Reason and the individual parishoner mulling it over and analyzing it is unnecessary and logic doesn’t enter into it. It’s all faith in the pope being what Catholics believe matt 16:18 says he is.

Firstly, of course reason enters into the equation. To say it doesn’t enter into the equation means that we are automatons who are commanded not to use our brain.

And Catholics do not “believe it because the pope said so” but because Christ said so, end of story.

Your 2 posts above do not jive. One is fine. The other is, well, ga-ga-la-la nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but you’re talking about two things:

1. originally you were talking about the Gospel being uncomfortable and challenging, as opposed to palatable.

Yes. And I believe denominations like TEC have taken the “hard sayings” of Christ and made it palatable.

My point is that many liberals I know will talk about struggling with their own tendencies to look down on people who are unlike them, etc. Now personally I think that many such folks are most tempted to look down on fundamentalists and ought to start there, but my point is that this is the language that they use, and it reflects the belief that humans are deeply prejudiced people called by the Gospel to a radically inclusive love that takes great risks in welcoming the disadvantaged and marginalized. Lots of middle-of-the-road liberals do just float with the current. But the people I know for whom “inclusion” of gays is a major issue are passionately committed to the Gospel as they understand it.

True, but a non-sequitor.

1. Now you are defining what it means to be challenged by the uncomfortable mandates of the Gospel as the call to submit one’s will to an external authority.It’s true that liberals don’t generally talk that way. And here’s where I fall in the middle. I think that liberals reduce authority to internal impulses too readily,

Yes.

but that many “conservatives” today see authority as an arbitrary set of rules discerned through some neutral process of exegesis or historical inquiry.

Certainly not the “conservative” Catholics I’ve read here on the CAFs. And not the “conservative” Catholics like Ratzinger and Wojtyła.

There is absolutely nothing “arbitrary” about the dogma that priesthood is reserved for men, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

 

[The_Sentry]

Uh oh. A “radical re-think?” What happened…

I’ve fought Gateways, HP, and hated Macs. I got a Dell and never looked back. Love 'em!

I didn’t realize SIL was so far-out…

Sorry to hear you’re sick, Jim. Go grab some Avengers comics and curl up by the fire…that is, if you haven’t already converted the fireplace into a mini library!

BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
*and so the crowd chants on and on…

 

[benidict]

BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
*and so the crowd chants on and on…

Careful my friend. let the suspension run its course. It may not be a decision we like, but we have to respect the mods. Peace to you and yours.

 

[PRmerger]

BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
BRING BACK GURNEY!
*and so the crowd chants on and on…

I feel the need to exonerate myself here.

It may appear that my comment that he has shown contempt for Catholicism is related to the mod’s actions to suspend him.

I hope that is not true, for I had no wish for gurney to be suspended.

While I am not averse to reporting posts that I feel violate forum rules, I did not report him.

Gurney, when you come back, hope we can still dialogue.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

…let me count the ways…

 

[Anna_Scott]

I feel the need to exonerate myself here.

It may appear that my comment that he has shown contempt for Catholicism is related to the mod’s actions to suspend him.

I hope that is not true, for I had no wish for gurney to be suspended.

While I am not averse to reporting posts that I feel violate forum rules, I did not report him.

Gurney, when you come back, hope we can still dialogue.

We all miss gurney. . . .He’s a good guy.

Anna

 

[MarkBrown]

I feel the need to exonerate myself here.

It may appear that my comment that he has shown contempt for Catholicism is related to the mod’s actions to suspend him.

I hope that is not true, for I had no wish for gurney to be suspended.

While I am not averse to reporting posts that I feel violate forum rules, I did not report him.

Gurney, when you come back, hope we can still dialogue.

I am in contact with Scott off CAF. He was suspended for upsetting the delicate nature of someone who opposed unions on the Teachers Union in Madison thread. Scott is a Union Rep.

I do not know which upsets me more, Scott being accused of upsetting someone or he being a union thug… oh rep., boss, wiseguy (mafia lingo)

I know you are reading this…now you have time to pray and practice that guitar thingy you keep going on about.

Fr. Mark

 

[JohnnyReb]

I am in contact with Scott off CAF. He was suspended for upsetting the delicate nature of someone who opposed unions on the Teachers Union in Madison thread. Scott is a Union Rep.

I do not know which upsets me more, Scott being accused of upsetting someone or he being a union thug… oh rep., boss, wiseguy (mafia lingo)

I know you are reading this…now you have time to pray and practice that guitar thingy you keep going on about.

Fr. Mark

I am not the one to question the mods. They have quite the job to do and I couldn’t do it any better, nor did I read the conversation. However, if you are going to get involved with a site like CAF, you better have some thick skin. People are going to disagree with you.

I hope to see Scott return soon. He is one of a few people in this world that help me keep my sanity, along with many of you who have posted in this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

I am in contact with Scott off CAF. He was suspended for upsetting the delicate nature of someone who opposed unions on the Teachers Union in Madison thread. Scott is a Union Rep.

Ah. Not related to this thread. Very good then.

 

[The_Sentry]

Gurney…what a malevolent and dangerous villain

 

[crazzeto]

I must really have missed something, I really can’t see what gurney did to get suspended.

 

[1234]

I must really have missed something, I really can’t see what gurney did to get suspended.

Ditto.

—this is the NON-CATHOLIC subforum. I assume that this includes not-happy-Catholic threads. I guess not. What’s the use of dissenting in the proper place, ie mean NOT in the theology subforums or family life or whatever. If one wants only boilerplate arguments against LDS or JW, then the mods should say so in the rules. I don’t think that GH has been insulting or anything-he has problems with the RC as many Catholics do. He is discussing them.

If Catholics get upset at what is written in the NON-CATHOLIC subforum, then they should not read or post on it.

 

[PRmerger]

Ditto.

—this is the NON-CATHOLIC subforum. I assume that this includes not-happy-Catholic threads. I guess not. What’s the use of dissenting in the proper place, ie mean NOT in the theology subforums or family life or whatever. If one wants only boilerplate arguments against LDS or JW, then the mods should say so in the rules. I don’t think that GH has been insulting or anything-he has problems with the RC as many Catholics do. He is discussing them.

If Catholics get upset at what is written in the NON-CATHOLIC subforum, then they should not read or post on it.

Look just a few posts up: #486.