What is it with Anglicans/Episcopals?

[jay29]

What is it with Catholics?? Maybe the RC should be spending more time on their own problems.

The CC does and is CORRECTING them.

I don’t hear them making retrobutions to all the males that were abused sexually;

I suggest you read the papers for once.

instead they go picking fights with other denoms. over homosexuality. How hypocritical.

The CC doesn’t teach people to sin like many denoms do. Wake up. That’s the difference.

FYI orthodox Anglicans completely disagree and distance themselves from Episcopalians who accept such behavior, so obviously you didn’t know what you were talking about when you started this thread.

Tell that to the kingpin of Canterbury.

This is so very disrespectful to those who can see how much of a fool you are making of yourself. Very unfortunate.

The Episcopalian Church is the child of the Anglican Church and Episcopalian Church Bishops are invited to Lambeth Conference. I think you might be the fool.

Wake it up.

 

[e-catholic]

**** **He is off his rocker. If I was part of the Anglican Communion, I would be begging Rome to let me in! ******

 

[acalboi]

You know… This post saddens me.

Not all Episcopalians/Anglicans fit in the same boat as +Robinson.

As one poster said earlier, it was just taken way out of context.

Now, I myself am Pro-Life, however, I tend to follow the belief of “Hate the sin, not the sinner” when it comes to homosexuality.

And FYI, most Catholic priests that I know are gay, the one at the local church right up the street was seen wearing rainbow suspenders on Pride Weekend last year (same weekend as my friends quince). This is just one example.

And on a slightly different note, I have noticed that, a lot of people on this board only look at the negative sides of the Episcopal Church, what about all of the missionary work we do? What about all of the outreach that we do? What about those nice little United Thank Offerings, millions of dollars that go to people in need, all from devout Christians that really want to help make a difference in the world.

So, let’s not be so negative.

There are bigger problems we must face in the world, and as I see it, we don’t really have time to focus on one decision made by a group of people who actually felt they were doing the right thing, even if they knew it would definitely cause some strife in the Anglican Communion.

And on a last note, I really detest the insinuation of +Robinson creating a “gay church” out of the Episcopal Church, he doesn’t have the power, the only power he has is in his own Diocese. Lucky for me, I’m in a pretty conservative Diocese. Besides, there is already a “Gay Church”… the Metropolitan Community Church (MMC).

I will continue to pray for Christian Unity and Peace around the world, as I’m sure that this is not what Christ intended his Church to be.

Pax Domini,

Malcom

 

[jay29]

.And FYI, most Catholic priests that I know are gay, the one at the local church right up the street was seen wearing rainbow suspenders on Pride Weekend last year (same weekend as my friends quince). This is just one example.

There is no room in the priesthood for practicing homosexual priests, per PB16th.

You, like many posters, haven’t made the OBVIOUS connection here: The CC doesn’t TEACH PEOPLE to sin. You gloss over this.

So, let’s not be so negative…There are bigger problems we must face in the world, and as I see it, we don’t really have time to focus on one decision made by a group of people who actually felt they were doing the right thing, even if they knew it would definitely cause some strife in the Anglican Communion…

I have to be. The Episcopalian Church is leading souls to hell by the acceptance/blessing of homosexual acts and abortion. No matter how much missionary work is done, those satanic teachings cancel them out in terms of salvation.

And on a last note, I really detest the insinuation of +Robinson creating a “gay church” out of the Episcopal Church, he doesn’t have the power, the only power he has is in his own Diocese. Lucky for me, I’m in a pretty conservative Diocese. Besides, there is already a “Gay Church”… the Metropolitan Community Church (MMC).

Those satanic teachings have the backing of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, jefferts schori. She is PUNISHING diocese that are leaving the Episcopal Church because they refuse to follow those horrible teachings. She is FORCING people to accept those terrible teachings all in the ruination of souls.

 

[e-catholic]

Now, I myself am Pro-Life, however, I tend to follow the belief of “Hate the sin, not the sinner” when it comes to homosexuality.

We should always hate the sin and not the sinner in every instance, however, the UCUSA is not hating the sin they are condoning it. I know people who are Catholic, and are gay, we don’t hate them, but we don’t condone their actions if they are practicing in that life-style. Certainly the Church cannot condone priests practicing a gay life-style, they are supposed to be celibate, they took a vow, it is a sin for priests to have sex whether it is with a man or a woman. Being a practicing homosexual is certainly not a good example to set for those who you are supposed to bu guiding. A priest should not do that, just like they should not openly continue in any sin.

 

[e-catholic]

Can someone tell me, are EC Bishops married? I know that in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches they have married priests, but the Bishops ar not married, is it the same in the EC?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Can someone tell me, are EC Bishops married? I know that in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches they have married priests, but the Bishops ar not married, is it the same in the EC?

Anglican clergy, including the bishops, may marry and are married. Some are even divorced and remarried.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[elt1956]

**I’m not trying to “teach” anything. AFAIK I said nothing wrong in that post, & certainly wasn’t aware that being RC obliged one to agree with other Catholics who disparage the C of E. How does being Catholic require one to be against the C of E, & never to defend it ? It could show us a thing or two about being Christian - we might learn a lo****t from other Churches, Anglicanism included. To see some threads here, one might imagine that there was nothing to Anglicanism except for its well-publicised woes. **​

**Besides, it is ****simply the truth that God is no respecter of persons - so it is not likely that He will be a respecter of Churches. If we are arrogant toward others, how does that accomplish the mission of the Church ? A humble atheist may be a far better servant ****of God, even though ****unknowingly, ****than a Catholic puffed with contempt for all those “outside” the Church. Having the Catholic name will **only increase our guilt, & so, our condemnation, if we have not the virtues Christians should have. And those virtues are found among others than Catholics.

BTW, that penultimate sentence says no** more than Newman said in one of his sermons - here: **

• [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse2.html (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse2.html)

---

Dear Gottle. Sorry the words of my post caused a misunderstanding. That seems to be a reoccuring difficulty on these forums. Only wondering what you find in the Anglican Church to defend, not that I mean there isn’t anything, just curious. And where your liberalism origniated? One doesn’t see too many Catholics on these forums defending other Faiths.

To defend myself, if I must, I have always been a supporter of Salvaition outside the Chruch and have been called a heretic for saying so. I was very happy to be able to read Pope Paul II’s encyclical on ecumenism Et Unim Sint,part of which I reprint here and agree with even more than what is said.

" I thank the Lord that he has led us to make progress along the path of unity and communion between Christians, a path difficult but so full of joy. Interconfessional dialogues at the theological level have produced positive and tangible results: this encourages us to move forward.

Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.

1. At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the “signs of the times”. The experiences of these years have made the Church even more profoundly aware of her identity and her mission in history. The Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the weaknesses of her members, conscious that their sins are so many betrayals of and obstacles to the accomplishment of the Savior’s plan. Because she feels herself constantly called to be renewed in the spirit of the Gospel, she does not cease to do penance. At the same time, she acknowledges and exalts still more the power of the Lord, who fills her with the gift of holiness, leads her forward, and conforms her to his Passion

9.The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, and at the same time acknowledges that “many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity”.[11]

“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.[12]

1. Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church “recognizes that in many ways she is linked”[14] with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit.

1. The same Document carefully draws out the doctrinal implications of this situation. Speaking of the members of these Communities, it declares: “All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church”.17 etc…

As you know Pope Paul II has been called a heretic by some very fundamentalist Trads. It is a shame that these have no “ears to hear, nor no eyes to see”.

 

[SIA]

The Episcopalian Church is the child of the Anglican Church and Episcopalian Church Bishops are invited to Lambeth Conference. I think you might be the fool.

Wake it up.

with your statement here alone, I again stand by my statement that you don’t know what you are talking about. You have proven that you have no idea of what the make-up of the Anglican Communion actually is and how its Primates operate.

 

[thirdn6]

I used to be Anglican, and even considered Religious life with the Anglican Franciscans, but I crossed the Tiber this Easter.

The Church of England has massive problems with authority. The Bishop Robinson issue is just the most extreme example of this. Those on the conservative right of the Anglican communion, such as the Archbishop of Nigeria, who described homosexuals as worse than dogs, are hardly any better.

The Anglicans used to stand on the threefold ground of reason, revelation and tradition as their basis of faith. This was an honourable and progressive expression of Christian faith. It seems they’ve thrown out all three.

Sadly, I do think the Bishop Robinson issue is an instance of not heeding Jesus’ warning “woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”. When Rev Jeffrey John, a man who had once had a committed homosexual relationship, but had been living celebately for the past 20 years in obedience to the church’s teaching, was nominated as a bishop in England, there was an outcry from the conservative Evangelical wing of the C of E, and he was leaned on not to accept the appointment. A few months later, to ‘score points’ off the conservative opposition, the liberal Anglicans in America elected Gene Robinson, a divorced man with an active gay lifestyle, to be a bishop! Unbelievable.

IF ONLY they can ex-communicate… But no, lest, they only cancel one another out.

… maybe I’m wrong… but I guess I’m correct.

 

[Archus]

Tell that to the kingpin of Canterbury.

Hehe, I just wanted to point out that I live like a 20 minute walk from the Cathedral… so I could just walk down into Canters and tell him (there’d probably be some consequences though lol)

 

[East_Anglican]

Hehe, I just wanted to point out that I live like a 20 minute walk from the Cathedral… so I could just walk down into Canters and tell him (there’d probably be some consequences though lol)

As the arch-bishop of Canterbury spends most of his time in Lambeth, it could be a wasted journey.

 

[c659smith]

As the arch-bishop of Canterbury spends most of his time in Lambeth, it could be a wasted journey.

The church of England where the Episcopal Church derives it’s roots and splits with England only due to not being able to swear allegance to the King of England when the Colonies were fighting England for their inndepence. Which shares it’s foundation with the murderous King Henry the 8th claiming himself to be head of the Catholic Church.

As far as the ordination of women your church does not stop there but ordains openly sexually active homosexual men and women; in others, same-sex unions are celebrated. However, on other issues such as abortion, Your church f r the most part has taken both sides of the debate.

On divorce they freely accept.

On contraception they freely accept

In order words if it feels good and is for conveince do it is Anglican/Episcopal Church attitude.

The church you claim was built by King Henry the 8th on downright selfishness and evil. I and am sure Catharine of Aragon would agree.

 

[c659smith]

As the arch-bishop of Canterbury spends most of his time in Lambeth, it could be a wasted journey.

Is it not a shame but there are more Catholics in church on Sunday in England than Anglicans even though out numbered 50 to 1 in population. The Aanglican church my friend is dying and can not sustain in it’s not being able to unite itself never the less evangelize others.

A great politician in England saw the truth and converted to Catholicism. **** Tony Blair**** 1997 to 2007

 

[Contarini]

On divorce they freely accept.

That is not true of the Church of England. (And don’t give me Henry VIII–that was an annulment.) Even Charles and Camilla could not get remarried in the Church. Yes, they did a “blessing” and this was a cop-out, but it’s hardly “free acceptance.”

The Episcopal Church is much more liberal in this regard, though even here I’m not sure it’s fair to say that we “freely accept.”

Edwin

 

[HannahLisa]

And this is why I am no longer Episcopalian…

Not all Anglicans/Episcopalians believe that abortion is allowed or that homosexuality is “okay”. I’m not sure if it’s in the statement of beliefs or not. But when leaders start talking about it like that…

I’m also no longer Methodist for the same reasons.

 

[c659smith]

That is not true of the Church of England. (And don’t give me Henry VIII–that was an annulment.) Even Charles and Camilla could not get remarried in the Church. Yes, they did a “blessing” and this was a cop-out, but it’s hardly “free acceptance.”

The Episcopal Church is much more liberal in this regard, though even here I’m not sure it’s fair to say that we “freely accept.”

Edwin

Me think you even realize that a blessing by the Anglican Church is the same as being married in the Aglican Church for it is the couple that makes their vows before God not the Minister. But the Anglican Church and it’s leaders gave them their blessing.
Get with the program.

An Annulment?

The marriage was consumated and Catherine gave him a daughter. An annulment means what to you. How many annulments did King Henry the 8th have and how many wives did he have be-headed?

The six wives (queens consort) of Henry VIII of England were, in order: Catherine of Aragon (annulled), Anne Boleyn (annulled then beheaded), Jane Seymour (died, childbirth fever), Anne of Cleves (annulled), Catherine Howard (beheaded), and Katherine Parr

Shakespear himself saw the evilness of this man.

“Sir Thomas Moore” did not King Henry have him be-headed because he would not kneel before him and accept King Henry the 8th a head of the Catholic Church.

 

[mercygate]

We should always hate the sin and not the sinner in every instance, however, the UCUSA is not hating the sin they are condoning it. I know people who are Catholic, and are gay, we don’t hate them, but we don’t condone their actions if they are practicing in that life-style. Certainly the Church cannot condone priests practicing a gay life-style, they are supposed to be celibate, they took a vow, it is a sin for priests to have sex whether it is with a man or a woman. Being a practicing homosexual is certainly not a good example to set for those who you are supposed to bu guiding. A priest should not do that, just like they should not openly continue in any sin.

The point with the pro-gay faction in the Episcopal Church is not about “hating-the-sin-but-not-the-sinner.” The point is to consider the behavior as NOT sinful. And beyond that to consider the behavior a God-given way of life.

 

[GKC]

Me think you even realize that a blessing by the Anglican Church is the same as being married in the Aglican Church for it is the couple that makes their vows before God not the Minister. But the Anglican Church and it’s leaders gave them their blessing.
Get with the program.

An Annulment?

The marriage was consumated and Catherine gave him a daughter. An annulment means what to you. How many annulments did King Henry the 8th have and how many wives did he have be-headed?

The six wives (queens consort) of Henry VIII of England were, in order: Catherine of Aragon (annulled), Anne Boleyn (annulled then beheaded), Jane Seymour (died, childbirth fever), Anne of Cleves (annulled), Catherine Howard (beheaded), and Katherine Parr

Shakespear himself saw the evilness of this man.

“Sir Thomas Moore” did not King Henry have him be-headed because he would not kneel before him and accept King Henry the 8th a head of the Catholic Church.

The question is what an annulment meant in the 16th century, to the Church and the State. It was, in fact, one of the ways that the Church managed the sacrament of matrimony, while allowing for the making and breaking of dynastic marrigaes. It happened every day. And a very complex set of rules, of impediments of consanquinty, of affinity, of the justice of public honesty, and many more and simpler impediments, were developed and modified to permit all tis to occur. Trent had to take it all in hand (Session XXIV).

And Henry’s causa was about average for the times, questioning whether a dispensation from Julius II, with respect to Henry’s impediment with regard to marrying his brother’s widow, against the Levitical Prohibition, was ultra vires. On its merits, it was an arguable point; the Church had held various opinions on the matter, in granting decrees of nullity in the past. Certainly it was good enough for Henry to expect to receive a decree of nullity. But then, there was Charles VII.

History is complicated. I strongly recommend Scarisbrick’s bio HENRY VIII, for a grasp of the situation. Or, for mind-numbing detail, Kelley’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[c659smith]

The question is what an annulment meant in the 16th century, to the Church and the State. It was, in fact, one of the ways that the Church managed the sacrament of matrimony, while allowing for the making and breaking of dynastic marrigaes. It happened every day. And a very complex set of rules, of impediments of consanquinty, of affinity, of the justice of public honesty, and many more and simpler impediments, were developed and modified to permit all tis to occur. Trent had to take it all in hand (Session XXIV).

And Henry’s causa was about average for the times, questioning whether a dispensation from Julius II, with respect to Henry’s impediment with regard to marrying his brother’s widow, against the Levitical Prohibition, was ultra vires. On its merits, it was an arguable point; the Church had held various opinions on the matter, in granting decrees of nullity in the past. Certainly it was good enough for Henry to expect to receive a decree of nullity. But then, there was Charles VII.

History is complicated. I strongly recommend Scarisbrick’s bio HENRY VIII, for a grasp of the situation. Or, for mind-numbing detail, Kelley’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.

GKC

King Henry was well aware of the facts in regards to marrying his brothers widow or do you believe he did not know who his sister in law was and to make another point the marriage with his brother was never consumated. The attempt to make this case was brought after his request for annulment was denied. This argument was not brought up by him but of the noblemen and the rich so church property could be confiscated and divided amongst them. Lets get real !!!

This annulment was not due to the sign of the times but the sign of selfishness, greed, and murder.