San Diego bishop calls for a practical ‘apology’ to L.G.B.T. Catholics

[Padres1969]

For now But how do you know the Cuurch will stick with these? Once you cavec to the culture concerning doctrine no doctrine is safe

They’ve stuck with them from the beginning, I don’t think you’ll see them drop them any time soon, seeing as they are a base statement of Christian belief.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

For now But how do you know the Cuurch will stick with these? Once you cavec to the culture concerning doctrine no doctrine is safe

Of all the things I have confronted in the issue of dialogue with the Anglican Communion in lo these many years, and it has been quite a long and interesting list, I have never had the concern that there is a prospect that our Anglican dialogue partners will repudiate either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. That opinion of mine has not changed through the years.

 

[estesbob]

They’ve stuck with them from the beginning, I don’t think you’ll see them drop them any time soon, seeing as they are a base statement of Christian belief.

They stuck with the male priesthood and the belief that homosexual behavior was a grievous sin for over 500 years after day split from the Church. What changed? Did God change his mind? Or did God allow this Church be an error for centuries ?

 

[estesbob]

Of all the things I have confronted in the issue of dialogue with the Anglican Communion in lo these many years, and it has been quite a long and interesting list, I have never had the concern that there is a prospect that our Anglican dialogue partners will repudiate either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. That opinion of mine has not changed through the years.

You evidently have not read the writings of Bishop Spong . Do you agree with the Churches teaching on the male priesthood and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior? These teachings have been around since the beginning also. What has made this generation of Episcopalians so much wiser than all that went before them? Was there a sudden revelation that revealed to them that homosexual behavior was suddenly okay or, more likely, did they came into the mores of the current culture

 

[Padres1969]

They stuck with the male priesthood and the belief that homosexual behavior was a grievous sin for over 500 years after day split from the Church. What changed? Did God change his mind? Or did God allow this Church be an error for centuries ?

No God didn’t change his mind, but God’s Church on Earth, which is run by humans with all our flaws and free will to interpret the will of God, may have err’ed for centuries.

 

[estesbob]

No God didn’t change his mind, but God’s Church on Earth, which is run by humans with all our flaws and free will to interpret the will of God, may have err’ed for centuries.

Our Church is not led by human beings-it t is led by the Holy Spirit-who would not let his church be in grievous error for 2,000 years on such basic questions of morality as homosexual behavior. I have no doubt that if in the future it becomes culturally unacceptable to believe in the resurrections many denominations well discard that teaching just as they discarded any other teachings that were inconvenient in the current culture

 

[Sarcelle]

Why do Catholics say gay marriage will destroy the family and damage society? Wishful/hateful thinking? No, it’s not.

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-condemns-abortion-euthanasia-same-sex-marriage-in-exhortation

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I do not go around on forums to bash gay people or anyone. The Catholic in the pew who understands Church teaching knows, or should know, that the changes LGBT people want are changes to Church doctrine.

I’ve known LGBT people and never had a thing to say about their private lives. Then they, not the Catholic in the pew, demanded gay marriage, first at the voting booth. It was voted down twice in California. I could not believe my eyes when my local newspaper showed a gay couple who could not get married in my state and warned of a “brain drain” if people didn’t change things. In fact, a letter from a reader appeared shortly after same-sex marriage was voted down in my state. The writer called our state “The great hate state.” Then the Supreme Court settled the issue. The President ‘evolved’ on the issue. Reading LGBT web sites just prior, LGBT activists were upset that the President was ‘not moving fast enough.’

So no, the Catholic in the pew did not start any of this. So, our kids in school are getting story books where the character is ‘out and proud.’

Ed

Gay marriage is the logical outcome from heterosexual marriages that are not open to life but instead are centered on what benefits those who are in it get for themselves. Once the marriage becomes inconvenient than the next step is divorce. Heterosexuals have done a fine job of destroying marriage and the family long before there were gay marriages.

Can’t place the blame on destroying marriage or the family solely on gay people.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I know what the RCC teaching is on this subject. I’m just pointing out that if you want to welcome people in your parishes, without any qualifiers or judgment, then this is what it looks like.

The Episcopal church doesn’t have a catechumenate.

The Catholic Church is called to have one.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The Episcopal church doesn’t have a catechumenate.
.

Really? Where did you hear that?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Can you offer some concrete examples? That would help define things.
Best,
Ed

The main part of the problem is presenting the ordinary communion as a kind of smarties which you shouldn’t feel shy in aspiring to receive. I would seriously like to hear Spiritual Communion being flagged up in extremely positive terms, in great detail, and very often. I would also like to see large numbers of churchgoers putting it into practice, all the time.

The main problem in this world is loneliness. Generations of married couples have never been taught by their elders to befriend singles. Sentimental-minded clergy hold up “good marriages”, in which the lonely and single are cold shouldered, as the sole model to aspire to (going on about sex at the same time).

Catholics and non-Catholic Christians alike should hold Scripture studies for a handful of acquaintances in their homes. Likewise prayer sessions both from texts or freestyle.

In theory one can attend pre-RCIA sessions as often and as long as one likes, though I’ve never seen it advertised in this way. In a few areas, post-RCIA sessions are talked about and surely the same ought to apply to those.

Some of the movements that step into all these voids are proving of less good value than they make out.

There is also SVP to be volunteered for (if you’ve got one nearby).

I’ve no idea what the Bishop in the OP had in mind for his own locality but those are my ambitions for the Church anyway.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Really? Where did you hear that?

Kindly fill in my lack of information!

I’d have better put, that each church must pursue its own slightly unique purpose as you yourself pointed out. It came out very wrong.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You evidently have not read the writings of Bishop Spong .

You assume wrongly. I had acquaintance with Bishop Spong’s writings and Bishop Spong.

The question is not, however, the theological creativity of any given individual in the Anglican communion. It is what is credal to Anglicanism. Over the years, I had no shortage of occasion to find myself associated with Catholics who were also very creative in their thoughts and approaches to Catholicism – at both end of the spectrum.

Having been a Catholic party in theological dialogue…no, I don’t have concern about a constitutive element of the Anglican Commmunion – let alone the whole Communion – repudiating either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Do you agree with the Churches teaching on the male priesthood and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior? These teachings have been around since the beginning also. What has made this generation of Episcopalians so much wiser than all that went before them? Was there a sudden revelation that revealed to them that homosexual behavior was suddenly okay or, more likely, did they came into the mores of the current culture

You will have to specify what you include in your above use of the plural…unless you really mean the singular possessive. As it is, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be understood.

 

[Padres1969]

The Episcopal church doesn’t have a catechumenate.

The Catholic Church is called to have one.

What makes you think the Episcopal Church doesn’t have a catechumenate? I mean sure it’s not called that, rather it uses the more to the point “formation” title, but the principle is the same. And it most definitely has it. Went through it myself earlier this year when I finally formally swam the Thames.

 

[Padres1969]

Our Church is not led by human beings-it t is led by the Holy Spirit-who would not let his church be in grievous error for 2,000 years on such basic questions of morality as homosexual behavior. I have no doubt that if in the future it becomes culturally unacceptable to believe in the resurrections many denominations well discard that teaching just as they discarded any other teachings that were inconvenient in the current culture

We’ll have to disagree. I see the Church as led by men that are guided by the Holy Spirit true, but who still interpret God’s will through our God given free will doing the best they can.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

You assume wrongly. I had acquaintance with Bishop Spong’s writings and Bishop Spong.

The question is not, however, the theological creativity of any given individual in the Anglican communion. It is what is credal to Anglicanism. Over the years, I had no shortage of occasion to find myself associated with Catholics who were also very creative in their thoughts and approaches to Catholicism – at both end of the spectrum.

Having been a Catholic party in theological dialogue…no, I don’t have concern about a constitutive element of the Anglican Commmunion – let alone the whole Communion – repudiating either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. .

Thank you for your words. I have also known Bishop Spong, and his books, for decades and know also that he has many followers who would have left the Church years ago if it had not been for his writing. He brings a great deal to the theological table. I don’t always agree but I love the fact that he IS speaking to millions of people AND that our branch of the Church is fine with that. There may be some major eye rolling in the House of Bishops, but he still has his seat there and God bless him for it.

What I struggle with here, especially on this forum, is that many RCs assume that the Bishop speaks for all of Anglicanism, and therefore all of us must be dismissed. I don’t know how to convey that that is quite absurd. Anglicans have room at the table for Jack Spong, for Tom Wright (who is pretty much on the other side of that table, to say the least), and Carter Hayward, and Rowan Williams. All good and respected theologians. And all part of our wonderful Church.

And I would add that at YOUR table, I greatly admire Joan Chittester, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, and Bede Griffiths. Add Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton to the mix, and you have a wonderful panoply of theologians.

What am I trying to say here? Both of our communities have a wide variety of people at that table, all with good things to say. There is room. I think more so at ours, in all honesty. I doubt if Jack Spong would have lasted long with you all. . Being creative and challenging is a GOOD thing, IMHO.

Your good Bishop in San Diego, to get back to the topic at hand, may be creative and challenging in another way by his statements this past month, although for very different purposes. And that, also, I believe, is a very good thing.

 

[JosieN]

No God didn’t change his mind, but God’s Church on Earth, which is run by humans with all our flaws and free will to interpret the will of God, may have err’ed for centuries.

Do you believe then that St. Thomas Aquinas, a teacher of dogmatic theology and St. Alphonsus Liguori, a teacher of moral theology did not interpret the Will of God correctly? I disagree, I think they were guided by the Holy Spirit and that today we are living according to our own will and desires.

The following are words of Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden.

“My daughter, you can recognize both the Holy Spirit and the unclean spirit through seven signs:​

7 Signs of the Holy Spirit
First, the Spirit of God makes a man deem the world worthless and consider in his heart all worldly honor as mere air.
Second, it endears God to the soul, and all delight in the flesh grows cold.
Third, it inspires him to patience and to glorying only in God.
Fourth, it stimulates the mind to be loving and compassionate with one’s neighbor and even with one’s enemies.
Fifth, it inspires him to all kinds of abstinence, even from licit things.
Sixth, it makes him trust in God in the midst of hardships and even to glory in hardships.
Seventh, it gives him the desire of wanting to depart and to be with Christ, rather than to prosper in the world and become soiled.​

7 Signs of the Evil Spirit
The evil spirit has seven effects to the contrary.
First, it makes the world seem sweet, and heaven distasteful.
Second, it makes a man seek honors and forget about the meaning of his life.
Third, it arouses hatred and impatience in the heart.
Fourth, it makes him bold toward God and obstinate in his own plans.
Fifth, it leads him to make light of his sins and to make excuses for them.
Sixth, it inspires in him frivolity of mind and every carnal impurity.
Seventh, it inspires in him the hope of a long life and a feeling a shame about going to confession.
Guard your thoughts carefully, then, so that you do not get deceived by this spirit.”

Taken from ‘The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden’, Book 4, Ch 23).

It is interesting isn’t it? Sometimes I think we do not even know we are listening to the wrong spirit. I think it is something we should all be aware of though.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Our Church is not led by human beings-it t is led by the Holy Spirit-who would not let his church be in grievous error for 2,000 years on such basic questions of morality as homosexual behavior. I have no doubt that if in the future it becomes culturally unacceptable to believe in the resurrections many denominations well discard that teaching just as they discarded any other teachings that were inconvenient in the current culture

What do you mean our Church is not led by human beings? Yes. It is. Assuredly, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is present. Some are the beneficiaries of a special protection afforded to them by the Holy Spirit. And, of course, there is assuredly the Providence of God.

To assert it is not led by men but instead it is “led” by the Holy Spirit will quickly get the whole lot of us into rather dreadful territory, from the perspective of Church history.

It is not led by the Holy Spirit in a manner as though He were executing its every step and every decision after the fashion human beings lead and direct an enterprise. He also allows its leaders to do regrettable things. Thus, Pope Benedict wrote to the bishops of the world in 2007:
Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.
In other words…some of its all too human leaders took decisions that resulted in our finding ourselves in very unhappy places with which we’re still very much contending.

One of my favourite things he said, years before he was elected Pope, was in an interview on European television. He was asked if the Holy Spirit chose the Pope. His answer was quite memorable…and I still remember it almost 20 years later:
*I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. *
Thus the thought of one of the Church’s greatest theological minds.

 

[TMC]

They stuck with the male priesthood and the belief that homosexual behavior was a grievous sin for over 500 years after day split from the Church. What changed? Did God change his mind? Or did God allow this Church be an error for centuries ?

Can’t the Episcopalians say the same about the various changes in the Roman Church?

 

[JosieN]

What do you mean our Church is not led by human beings? Yes. It is. Assuredly, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is present. Some are the beneficiaries of a special protection afforded to them by the Holy Spirit. And, of course, there is assuredly the Providence of God.

To assert it is not led by men but instead it is “led” by the Holy Spirit will quickly get the whole lot of us into rather dreadful territory, from the perspective of Church history.

It is not led by the Holy Spirit in a manner as though He were executing its every step and every decision after the fashion human beings lead and direct an enterprise. He also allows its leaders to do regrettable things. Thus, Pope Benedict wrote to the bishops of the world in 2007:
Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.
In other words…some of its all too human leaders took decisions that resulted in our finding ourselves in very unhappy places with which we’re still very much contending.

One of my favourite things he said, years before he was elected Pope, was in an interview on European television. He was asked if the Holy Spirit chose the Pope. His answer was quite memorable…and I still remember it almost 20 years later:
*I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. *
Thus the thought of one of the Church’s greatest theological minds.

I believe you are saying that the Church is not “led” by the Holy Spirit but by men. The Holy Spirit only guides them leaving space and freedom for men to decide without entirely abandoning it. I do hope then, that the men leading the Church are following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospel and not using too much of their own freedom, as the Holy Spirit cannot error, while man with his free will can always chose the wrong path and lead others on the wrong path also.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I believe you are saying that the Church is not “led” by the Holy Spirit but by men. The Holy Spirit only guides them leaving space and freedom for men to decide without entirely abandoning it. I do hope then, that the men leading the Church are following the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospel and not using too much of their own freedom, as the Holy Spirit cannot error, while man with his free will can always chose the wrong path and lead others on the wrong path also.

I think, frankly, that the two quotes from Benedict are both more eloquent and carry far more weight than any commentary I could add. I think he expresses the reality very well.