So just how should the Church have stomped out Protestantism

[mtr01]

The indulgences of the purgatory during the Reformation were wrong. The church (the pope) was receving money from the laity in exchange for diminishing the time a soul would spend in purgatory.

This is incorrect. Indulgences were not given to “lessen one’s time in purgatory”. They were a remission of time spent in penance for one’s sins. In that time period, penance was much stricter and could last for years - this is why indulgences were given in days (e.g., a 180 day indulgence). It is precisely because of misunderstandings such as yours (that indulgences were “time off” from purgatory) that the form was changed to “partial” and “plenary”. Much the same as “pomano”, the devout can apply this to those who have suffered bodily death, for the same reasons.

Now as far as the abuse is concerned, at that time St. Peter’s Basilica was collapsing and needed to be rebuilt. The Pope issued an indulgence for those who of their own initiative contributed financially to the effort (as a “work” pleasing to God). It was unscrupulous clerics who went about selling these indulgences and pocketing the money for themselves. The Church itself was not at fault. To hold the Catholic Church responsible would be like holding the Church of Constantinople responsible for the slaughter of the Latins in that city in 1182.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

 

[angelheart]

Hello,

You may be right…what i said is what i learned, which may be wrong. Anyway, doesn’t it seem strange that the indulgence thing appeared in the same time with the need to rebuilt the Saint Peter basilica? It’s still wrong, right?..to sell indulgences to be able to build the church.

Please forgive me if i might be wrong, but this is what i read and learned. I wasn’t there to see if the pope did it or other bishops.

Thanks,
Stefania

 

[Hellisreal]

Hello,

You may be right…what i said is what i learned, which may be wrong. Anyway, doesn’t it seem strange that the indulgence thing appeared in the same time with the need to rebuilt the Saint Peter basilica? It’s still wrong, right?..to sell indulgences to be able to build the church.

Please forgive me if i might be wrong, but this is what i read and learned. I wasn’t there to see if the pope did it or other bishops.

Thanks,
Stefania

Citations please. And lets not forget sins happen on both of our sides of the “fence”

Humility…

 

[BrewMax]

I was a United Methodist for the first 30 years of my life. Our Bishops were pretty much in name only. It seems to me that our District Superintendent had more authority over the daily operation of our churches, but then again that was more administrative functions. There was no central authority to appeal to to clarify anything on teachings. The Methodist church had a Book of Discipline but even in that you couldn’t look for “official” teachings on various issues.

The Episcopalians are the Anglicans in America. They illustrate my point precisely that their bishops have no authority whatsoever. The Bishop of Canterbury, their nominal head, is powerless to prevent American parishes from disassociating with their bishops because they are too liberal and associating with bishops in Nigeria, because their theology is more to their liking. All the Bishop of Canterbury has been able to do is say “Let’s get along,” or “I really wish you wouldn’t do that.” Where’s the authority there?

ChadS

I agree with what you are saying, but The Episcopal church is risking being forced to walk apart from Anglicanism if they continue ordaining actively same sex clergy and such. It certainly sounds like at least some kind of authority to kick a church out of the communion if they continue to break church teachings.

 

[BrewMax]

Into the Catholic Church, from which it separated in the early to mid-1500s.

I doubt if they would be interested in that given the sex abuse issue and such. Just my thought.

 

[ChadS]

I agree with what you are saying, but The Episcopal church is risking being forced to walk apart from Anglicanism if they continue ordaining actively same sex clergy and such. It certainly sounds like at least some kind of authority to kick a church out of the communion if they continue to break church teachings.

Judging from what I’m reading it’s not the liberal ones that are threatening to break apart or leaving their dioceses it’s the conservative ones. I’m sorry but I still don’t see an “authority” that is trying to reign any of these sides in. Nobody has said that these gay bishops aren’t really bishops or weren’t properly installed. The discussions of the conservative parishes leaving has been just that discussions. Nobody has told them they can’t leave. It just seems like one huge mess to me and nobody can stop it or put a stop to it.

ChadS

 

[Contarini]

Judging from what I’m reading it’s not the liberal ones that are threatening to break apart or leaving their dioceses it’s the conservative ones. I’m sorry but I still don’t see an “authority” that is trying to reign any of these sides in.

Well, you clearly are not paying attention.

The Episcopal Church is facing discipline by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Whether the Communion will actually do anything remains to be seen.

Nobody has said that these gay bishops aren’t really bishops

There is only one bishop in an openly gay relationship, as far as I know. And obviously he is just as much a bishop as the most orthodox, moral Anglican bishop out there. To say otherwise is Donatism.

Plenty of people are saying that he should not have been made a bishop.

Edwin

 

[angelheart]

Citations please. And lets not forget sins happen on both of our sides of the “fence”

Humility…

Hello,

Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

"In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope’s income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats. On his unexpected death his creditors faced financial ruin. A lampoon proclaimed that “Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor.”

“The most important occurrence of Leo’s pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”

Thanks,

Stefania

 

[angelheart]

And yes, I agree that sins happen on both sides of the fence.
I am working on getting humility, but i admit it’s probably the hardest thing to gain

 

[dragoneustace]

One thing to keep in mind about Orthodoxy is this…

If you have a serious honest issue with specific beliefs or practices of Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity will probably be a problem for you as well.
/…/

You could say about diffrences about **Greek **Catholicism and Orthodox.
They are reallly small.

 

[ChadS]

Well, you clearly are not paying attention.

The Episcopal Church is facing discipline by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Whether the Communion will actually do anything remains to be seen.

There is only one bishop in an openly gay relationship, as far as I know. And obviously he is just as much a bishop as the most orthodox, moral Anglican bishop out there. To say otherwise is Donatism.

Plenty of people are saying that he should not have been made a bishop.

Edwin

Actually I have been paying a fair amount of attention. In the United States the only parishes trying to split from the main body of Episcopalians have been conservative-minded churches. They then want to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a bishop or diocese they disagree with and place themselves under another foreign bishop that suits them better.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/19/episcopal_split_reaches_mass_diocese/

beliefnet.com/story/206/story_20652_1.html

It seems to me that Rowan Williams demands are being made just as much to the Americans as they are other churches. He doesn’t want a split, he wants compromise and that is going to irritate both sides. As far as disciplining the Episcopalian church I don’t think there is enough will do that.

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXQ9QkVQDrMGH03jTaq9Yxu5F0Bw

abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/22/2040701.htm?section=world

I never doubted that Robinson and others were considered valid bishops by the Episcopalians were that they somehow weren’t fully bishops. What strikes me is the parishes that have a problem with him or their own bishops simply feel free to disregard their bishops authority in their diocese and simply go with a bishop that they like more. If they can disregard this bishop what is there to say that in 5 or 10 years they won’t like the next bishop they’ve put themselves under. Where is the authority and deference to the local and properly constituted bishop? None that I can see.

ChadS

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Edwin,

Well, you clearly are not paying attention.

The Episcopal Church is facing discipline by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Whether the Communion will actually do anything remains to be seen.

Just a minute there.

I am not thinking that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, but I think you may be wistfully misreading it. I hope you don’t mind my sharing a take on this whole thing…

No one actually has any authority to expel TEC from the “communion”. It has never been addressed as a possibility and there is no procedure. The Anglican Communion is not a communion in the traditional sense for genuine Apostolic churches, “Communion” is just another name for organization as they use it, because they have already reached the point where the Global South churches will not break bread with the North Americans, so they are not “in communion” anymore.

But they are all still part of this informal organization, this ‘gathering’ of nominally similar churches, which actually do not share a common theology!

The Archbishop of Canterbury can do nothing. He hosts the Lambeth Conferences every ten years where the invited bishops are supposed to mutually agree on teachings and practices, but there is no means to enforce the findings of Lambeth, even among those who have attended. No control whatever. The ABC must rely on donations from outside of the Church of England because the expenses are so great, and most of THAT money is coming from the very troublemakers whom you claim will soon be under discipline!


Katherine Schori of TEC

There is only one bishop in an openly gay relationship, as far as I know. And obviously he is just as much a bishop as the most orthodox, moral Anglican bishop out there. To say otherwise is Donatism.

I would **not **say that his baptism was invalid, but you have obviously embraced the Latin understanding of Apostolic Succession. This is not a problem for Holy Orthodoxy. We would not recognize him because of his heresies, but probably accept him as Orthodox if he were to repent, and Chrismate him.

That does not mean he has any right to recognition as a bishop.

We don’t have to assume anything about his episcopal role, he does not have an Orthodox flock. The problem for the Donatists was that the people they were excluding were Orthodox like themselves, believing likewise in every manner. And the failings of the clergy and bishops could be forgiven if they were repentant (which they were). This is nothing like Anglicanism, which does not teach Orthodox theology and does not repent of it’s moral or ethical failings.

Plenty of people are saying that he should not have been made a bishop.

Edwin

Of course.

Others might say he never was.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}**

“There is only one bishop in an openly gay relationship, as far as I know.”**
Actually, there are several *reputed *to be in closeted relationships, even while married to people of the opposite sex, but I cannot substantiate that right now. Perhaps someone else reading this can.

Vicki Gene is the first to have openly flaunted his* living in sin with another person* in the rectory and still getting elected to the Episcopate, and accepted by his brother bishops! (and sister bishops too)

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/images/BishopRobinsonCope_medres.jpg

http://www.integritypalmbeach.org/images/robinson_and_partner.jpg

To quote Archbishop Rowan Williams:
“At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.” And he did withhold an invitation to the Rt Reverend Vicky.



(I’ll be honest here, I can’t tell if this is bishop Robinson or not, this bishop looks much older than other pictures I have seen)

He also states in the same letter:
“I have said, and repeat here, that coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true.”

And…
“…It is an occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his privilege of calling his colleagues together, not to legislate but to discover and define something more about our common identity through prayer, listening to God’s Word and shared reflection. It is an occasion to rediscover the reality of the Church itself as a worldwide community united by the call and grace of Christ.”
Which is like saying nothing, they are rediscovering…

“But the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”

The Anglican association of unalike churches can do nothing about TEC, they cannot even actually expel them. So the most conservative member churches…biblically informed evangelical churches for the most part…are resorting to a new covenant that Anglican churches worldwide will be invited to affirm. The TEC is not expected to agree to it.

This is apparently the only means to have a communion without TEC, they must reconstitute one. That means building a new association and ignoring the old.

Interestingly, the African Provinces are growing so fast that they will probably make up the numerical losses of souls from North America and England in three years time. Not that these are unimportant, there is an effort underway to provide new bishops to serve those about to be cut adrift. This is a clear indication of how broken the old system is, the Global South bishops are routinely ignoring the fact that TEC is already in place there, and have been doing so for some time.

My own sad appraisal of the once vaunted Church of England: If the ABC and the Church of England agrees to join the new covenant, it will probably split at home. If it does not, it will probably split at home. Lose-lose.

 

[BrewMax]

Actually I have been paying a fair amount of attention. In the United States the only parishes trying to split from the main body of Episcopalians have been conservative-minded churches. They then want to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a bishop or diocese they disagree with and place themselves under another foreign bishop that suits them better.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/19/episcopal_split_reaches_mass_diocese/

beliefnet.com/story/206/story_20652_1.html

It seems to me that Rowan Williams demands are being made just as much to the Americans as they are other churches. He doesn’t want a split, he wants compromise and that is going to irritate both sides. As far as disciplining the Episcopalian church I don’t think there is enough will do that.

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jXQ9QkVQDrMGH03jTaq9Yxu5F0Bw

abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/22/2040701.htm?section=world

I never doubted that Robinson and others were considered valid bishops by the Episcopalians were that they somehow weren’t fully bishops. What strikes me is the parishes that have a problem with him or their own bishops simply feel free to disregard their bishops authority in their diocese and simply go with a bishop that they like more. If they can disregard this bishop what is there to say that in 5 or 10 years they won’t like the next bishop they’ve put themselves under. Where is the authority and deference to the local and properly constituted bishop? None that I can see.

ChadS

It doesn’t seem to me that requiring compliance with the Windsor report is in any way compromise. This is what the Anglican Primates are requiring from TEC. Affecting a moratorium on same sex unions and ceasing from ordaning clergy in actively gay unions seems like a true act of seriousness to me.

 

[BrewMax]

Well, you clearly are not paying attention.

The Episcopal Church is facing discipline by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Whether the Communion will actually do anything remains to be seen.

There is only one bishop in an openly gay relationship, as far as I know. And obviously he is just as much a bishop as the most orthodox, moral Anglican bishop out there. To say otherwise is Donatism.

Plenty of people are saying that he should not have been made a bishop.

Edwin

This is pretty much how I see this too.

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Welcome, dragon!

You could say about diffrences about **Greek **Catholicism and Orthodox.
They are really small.

Only when looking at them with Roman Catholic eyes.

 

[rr1213]

Hello Edwin,

Just a minute there.

I am not thinking that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, but I think you may be wistfully misreading it. I hope you don’t mind my sharing a take on this whole thing…

No one actually has any authority to expel TEC from the “communion”. It has never been addressed as a possibility and there is no procedure.

I disagree. The Primates of the Communion in conjunction with the ABC most certainly have the ability to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion. They would do so by not inviting TEC to Lambeth and the consultative bodies of the Communion. Whether they have the courage to do so is an entirely different question and one, IMHO, where the presumption is in the negative until proven otherwise. (VG Robinson was ordained as a bishop four years ago…)

 

[ChadS]

I disagree. The Primates of the Communion in conjunction with the ABC most certainly have the ability to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion. They would do so by not inviting TEC to Lambeth and the consultative bodies of the Communion. Whether they have the courage to do so is an entirely different question and one, IMHO, where the presumption is in the negative until proven otherwise. (VG Robinson was ordained as a bishop four years ago…)

“But the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”

If this quote provided to us by Hesychios is accurate, and I don’t see any reason to doubt it, I can’t see how one group or group of churches could even try to expel another. It also seems to suggest that any and all doctrinal positions are acceptable and just as much a part of Anglican theological expressions. It’s your parish or diocese choice to make their own decision on what is and isn’t Anglican. I don’t see any indication of any form of authority to do much in the way of correction to any wayward Episcopalians.

ChadS

 

[rr1213]

“But the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”

If this quote provided to us by Hesychios is accurate, and I don’t see any reason to doubt it, I can’t see how one group or group of churches could even try to expel another. It also seems to suggest that any and all doctrinal positions are acceptable and just as much a part of Anglican theological expressions. It’s your parish or diocese choice to make their own decision on what is and isn’t Anglican. I don’t see any indication of any form of authority to do much in the way of correction to any wayward Episcopalians.

ChadS

You are correct that the Primates and the ABC do not have any ability to compel TEC to orthodoxy. The Anglican Communion does not operate like the Papacy. Still, if the Communion is nothing more than a club, it is still a club that refuse to invite TEC to the party. If that would happen, TEC would not remain within the Communion. Not that this is gonna happen…

 

[BrewMax]

I disagree. The Primates of the Communion in conjunction with the ABC most certainly have the ability to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion. They would do so by not inviting TEC to Lambeth and the consultative bodies of the Communion. Whether they have the courage to do so is an entirely different question and one, IMHO, where the presumption is in the negative until proven otherwise. (VG Robinson was ordained as a bishop four years ago…)

May I add that this would make TEC an associate of the worldwide Anglican church as the United Methodist church is now and that means certainly not in communion.