The poor Church of England is falling apart

[Hesychios]

Even though he’s gay, he’s still chaste. He’s held true to his vows. And I don’t care what anyone says: he’s the finest priest I’ve ever met.

Well put father.

Same-sex attraction is a trial, just as opposite-sex attraction is a trial for anyone who must be chaste to stand in the flame before the altar of God.

A tendency to homosexual feelings is a real burden, to be sure, but that alone should not bar a man from the priesthood.

With that said, whilst I DO NOT at all endorse Bishop Robinson,

True enough, he lives an openly active gay lifestyle, and promotes it.

He lives unchastely, it would be the same if he slept with a woman who is not his wife. So of course the argument turns on whether gays should have a right to marry, and thus live together legitimately.

Well, no. The traditional catholic faith has never acknowledged that. We don’t believe that God intended that possibility for us. People promoting this argument are standing at the margins of orthodox Christianity looking in.

I do feel slightly bad for him that he wasn’t invited to Lambeth. I mean, he is a bishop of the Episcopal Church. He still is a validly ordained bishop of the Anglican Communion. Thus, do you not think he should be invited?

I don’t think Lambeth was ever intended to be a real synod, they call it a conference, and they mostly confer with one another. It’s more like of a social gathering in the sense that the participants can all discuss what they would like to see the communion develop into as time passes and also any nagging problems.

They don’t compose Canons or Regulations, they pass Resolutions. Circumstances have shown that anything decided there is really unenforceable across the communion.

It has all the authority that WYD has for Catholics, very nice to meet you sort of thing. They could call it World Bishops Day.

The bishops go home and do what they want.

I don’t feel bad for him, but I do think he should have been invited to the event. They might all just as well admit to the reality of their situation.

Michael, that sinner

 

[Peter_J]

I’ll be truthful here. I personally have nothing against gay clergy. I took this stance when I found out a couple years ago that my long time pastor, spiritual director, and confessor was homosexual. At first I was a bit startled. Then I realized something. Even though he’s gay, he’s still chaste. He’s held true to his vows.

Very important distinction. It really drives me up the wall to hear people (even conservatives!) call Robinson “the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion”, when obviously the real complaint is not with his “openness” but rather with the fact that he actively living a “gay livestyle”.

 

[Peter_J]

It has all the authority that WYD has for Catholics, very nice to meet you sort of thing. They could call it World Bishops Day.

Awesome. :bounce:

 

[emeraldcoast]

Originally Posted by BritishCatholic
"Even though he’s gay, he’s still chaste. He’s held true to his vows. And I don’t care what anyone says: he’s the finest priest I’ve ever met. "

Hesychios Quote:

“Well put father…”

BritishCatholic is a priest??

 

[cainem]

I personnally would love to see an Anglican rite Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome, it may even act as a great tool to re evangelise England

 

[BritishCatholic]

Originally Posted by BritishCatholic
"Even though he’s gay, he’s still chaste. He’s held true to his vows. And I don’t care what anyone says: he’s the finest priest I’ve ever met. "

Hesychios Quote:

“Well put father…”

BritishCatholic is a priest??

, I am not a priest. I think Hesychios got the impression that I was Fr. Michael Salvagna. I’m not. I was just citing the quotation I had on my signature.

I am, however, very close to the Passionists, and have been discerning a vocation with them for some time. But once, again, I am not a priest. It was nice being called “father” though…:blushing:

World Bishops Day…I like that.

While we’re on the subject of Bishop Robinson, while he does live an openly gay lifestyle, I have watched some interviews with him and such and he seems like a very holy man. Despite not being invited to Lambeth, he said he accepted the Archbishop’s move and still has the utmost respect for him.

 

[BHTech]

While we’re on the subject of Bishop Robinson, while he does live an openly gay lifestyle, I have watched some interviews with him and such and he seems like a very holy man. Despite not being invited to Lambeth, he said he accepted the Archbishop’s move and still has the utmost respect for him.

Dear BritishCatholic,

With all due respect to you I have been a member of VOL for a while and a former Anglican and I’ve had the opportunity to read several of VGR talks. I disagree that there is anything Holy in this man. Misguided is a better term as he like you and me is a child of God. As proof I refer you to a recent article in the London Times by Ruth Gethill and I quote

Adding that he was totally orthodox on doctrines such as the Trinity, the Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, he [VGR] said: “We are fighting over something that is much less than all those. We have raised this one issue of sexuality over and above all the essentials. This is at best unhelpful - and at worst idolatry.”…Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1, he [VGR] said: “That particular problem is homophobia and, having [that], they root around in the Bible for the bits that seem to be relevant.”

These are not the words of a Holy man but a confused person. Please note I am not condemning the man, but I am making a judgment call on his own judgment.

The article can be found at timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4327138.ece

Blessings,

BHTech

 

[Peter_J]

Can someone clarify for me: was Robinson (VGR) the only Anglican (in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury) bishop who was not invited to the Lambeth conference?

 

[BHTech]

Can someone clarify for me: was Robinson (VGR) the only Anglican (in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury) bishop who was not invited to the Lambeth conference?

No VGR was not the only one. Bishop Martyn Minns a newly consecrated Bishop in CANA was also not invited. I believe Akinola made him a Bishop after he left TEC and the ABC did not like that, and he was subsequently not invited along with VGR.

Blessings

BHTech

 

[SIA]

let us not forget that the AC was a creation of Henry VIII for his personal reason(s). it was over a period of time that his successors had religion in England put through many permutations that eventually became the AC. it is important to remember that because as we know from Scripture, a house built on sand will not stand.

i believe that there will be those within the AC who will join the RCC not as Anglicans but as converts to Catholicism. eventually, as they establish themselves as a faith community within the RCC, they may enact traditions that identify them as Anglo-Catholic. let us not forget the notables that have “come home” over time. “The Journey Home” on EWTN had an interesting and insightful program on recent converts only a few weeks ago.

let us keep all in our prayers.

The condescendment and arrogance here runs almost as deep as the ignorance.

 

[BHTech]

The condescendment and arrogance here runs almost as deep as the ignorance.

There is nothing condescending or even ignorant about what IrishRover has written. I challenge you SIA in a brotherly manner to prove to the world that King Henry VIII separated from Rome over Doctrinal reasons.

If so kindly list the Doctrinal reasons for me. Next prove to me their validity.

Blessings

BHTech

 

[SIA]

There is nothing condescending about what IrishRover has written. I challenge you SIA in a brotherly manner to prove to the world that King Henry VIII separated from Rome over Doctrinal reasons.

If so kindly list the Doctrinal reasons for me. Next prove to me their validity.

Blessings

BHTech

The same reasons as for the Reformation that the RCC so arrogantly twarted but yet has quiety embraced over the centuries. What would have been the reason for Vatican ll otherwise?

 

[BHTech]

The same reasons as for the Reformation that the RCC so arrogantly twarted but yet has quiety embraced over the centuries. What would have been the reason for Vatican ll otherwise?

I asked you a question first my friend. Let me follow up on what you have written above. Are you saying that in any history book, you will find that King Henry VIII broke from Rome for Doctrinal reasons? I note as well you have failed to list those reasons. Would you mind pointing to a historical textbook that outlines Henry VIII doctrinal reasons?

Blessings

BHTech

 

[SIA]

I asked you a question first my friend. Let me follow up on what you have written above. Are you saying that in any history book, you will find that King Henry VIII broke from Rome for Doctrinal reasons? I note as well you have failed to list those reasons. Would you mind pointing to a historical textbook that outlines Henry VIII doctrinal reasons?

Blessings

BHTech

Do you not know what the Reformation in England was? What history book from the hundreds written do you wnat me to list?

 

[BHTech]

Do you not know what the Reformation in England was? What history book from the hundreds written do you wnat me to list?

Friend I have been an Anglican all my life save the last two and I grew up under the British system of education. I am well acquainted with its history. I ask you again, what Doctrinal reasons did King Henry VIII give for breaking up with Rome and please provide me with a text book that spells out those Doctrinal reasons?

In case you missed the meaning of the word Doctrine and from the Oxford dictionary: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

Blessings

BHTech

 

[SIA]

Friend I have been an Anglican all my life save the last two and I grew up under the British system of education. I am well acquainted with its history. I ask you again, what Doctrinal reasons did King Henry VIII give for breaking up with Rome and please provide me with a text book that spells out those Doctrinal reasons?

In case you missed the meaning of the word Doctrine and from the Oxford dictionary: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.

Blessings

BHTech

why don’t you just stop with all of the condescending remarks. You know as well as anybody that King Henry had plenty of reasons to pull England away from Rome set aside his denied annulment. You should know better than anyone being Anglican most of your life. As far as doctrinal reasons, you know them. Purgatory (a Romanish doctrine), indulgences etc.

 

[BHTech]

why don’t you just stop with all of the condescending remarks. You know as well as anybody that King Henry had plenty of reasons to pull England away from Rome set aside his denied annulment. You should know better than anyone being Anglican most of your life. As far as doctrinal reasons, you know them. Purgatory (a Romanish doctrine), indulgences etc.

Friend because I speak the truth you believe that I am being condescending? Think what you may but I am not, but rather, I wish to point out something to you. Anglicans for as much as I love them to death often fool themselves including you. I count myself as once belonging to that group and I take no pride in it as I look back. In short it is intellectual dishonesty on the part of many Anglicans to not admit the obvious.

The reality is King Henry VIII had NO Doctrinal reasons for leaving or parting ways with Rome. He did it for purely selfish reasons despite the reformers knocking on his door step all the way. You will note as well from your history that the reformers did not have their way with him. Henry VIII did not say “I disagree with the Pope and by extension Roman doctrines because”;

a) Purgatory was doctrinally wrong,
b) The Trinity was doctrinally wrong,
c) Mary’s virginity and Mother of God title was doctrinally wrong,
d) Indulgences are theologically wrong
e) Real Presence was doctrinally wrong,** etc, etc, etc**.

I note you finally mention the long awaited words " denied annulment". Now you are getting to the meat of the matter after several posts. Henry broke with Rome because he wanted a boy child and sought to obtain it through a divorce of his then wife on selfish grounds. When denied by Pope Gregory he simply took matters into his own hands and that is history for you. Did Fisher and Moore agree with Henry actions?

This brings me back to IrishRover point which is perfectly valid. You can twist it left, right and center, believe it or not, or accept it or not, it does not change the fact that he broke away from Rome for selfish reasons aided by the reformers or not.

When faced with the judgment of God one never hopes that Henry VIII said, "The reformers made me do it, because of X, Y, and Z when they are pure lies.

Intellectually honest behooves us all.

Blessings

BHTech

 

[jesuitinnam]

IMO, the C of E is far from finished, so certain RCs are not well-advised to gloat over its destruction as they do.​

I think Rome needs to become more Protestant & much more evangelical, as well as that the C of E move towards Rome - the assumption that only one party, the Roman, need move, is one that needs to be challenged. Why, after all, would the C of E want to join Rome, which has plenty of problems & divisions, doctrinal & moral, as it is ? The C of E has no need of Rome’s problems as well as those it has. Look beneath the gloss, & Rome is really no better than any other Church; it’s not free of scandals, divisions, bad history, self-delusion, infidelity to Christ, any more than any other Church is. So let’s have a bit less of this Roman complacency that treats all other Churches as sick, when, as the biggest, it is probably the sickest of all.

Becoming more Proestatnt - move towards the C of E. That’s absolutely preposterous. Why would 1.131 billion catholics need to change their faith, doctrines and dogmas, to entice a union with a VERY sick not even practicing 26 million Anglicans in England.

Compromise, compromise, compromise is exactly what is wrong with the Anglican Communion. And praise be to God, they are compromising their church into non-existence.

 

[jesuitinnam]

Not to get off-topic, but I don’t there think there are 22 rites. In the East there’s Byzantine, Coptic, Antiochian/Maronite, Chaldean, and Armenian Rites; in the west you’ve got Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Sarum, Carmelite, Benedictine, Cistercian, Carthusian, and … well probably some more I’m not thinking of at the moment, but I don’t think the count is up to 22.

LOL

Benedictine, Cistercian, Carthusian - hrm, aren’t rites, they’re Holy Orders

 

[BritishCatholic]

Friend because I speak the truth you believe that I am being condescending? Think what you may but I am not, but rather, I wish to point out something to you. Anglicans for as much as I love them to death often fool themselves including you. I count myself as once belonging to that group and I take no pride in it as I look back. In short it is intellectual dishonesty on the part of many Anglicans to not admit the obvious.

The reality is King Henry VIII had NO Doctrinal reasons for leaving or parting ways with Rome. He did it for purely selfish reasons despite the reformers knocking on his door step all the way. You will note as well from your history that the reformers did not have their way with him. Henry VIII did not say “I disagree with the Pope and by extension Roman doctrines because”;

a) Purgatory was doctrinally wrong,
b) The Trinity was doctrinally wrong,
c) Mary’s virginity and Mother of God title was doctrinally wrong,
d) Indulgences are theologically wrong
e) Real Presence was doctrinally wrong,** etc, etc, etc**.

I note you finally mention the long awaited words " denied annulment". Now you are getting to the meat of the matter after several posts. Henry broke with Rome because he wanted a boy child and sought to obtain it through a divorce of his then wife on selfish grounds. When denied by Pope Gregory he simply took matters into his own hands and that is history for you. Did Fisher and Moore agree with Henry actions?

This brings me back to IrishRover point which is perfectly valid. You can twist it left, right and center, believe it or not, or accept it or not, it does not change the fact that he broke away from Rome for selfish reasons aided by the reformers or not.

When faced with the judgment of God one never hopes that Henry VIII said, "The reformers made me do it, because of X, Y, and Z when they are pure lies.

Intellectually honest behooves us all.

Blessings

BHTech

I have to concur with BHTech. I have researched the Reformations(Protestant, English, and Catholic) for years. Henry VIII was a man deeply in love with the Roman Catholic faith; hence why the pope bestowed upon him the title Defensor Fidei. But being the greedy, ambitious man he was, he let the seductrous Anne Boleyn torture him until he couldn’t take it anymore. Thus why he split from Rome, indeed only because the pope would not grant him an annullment. While no official document states that Henry VIII regretted his decision, the majority of historians believe that Henry did indeed dread his decision. It is also a well believed fact Henry VIII still loved the Catholic faith unto his death.