What is it with Anglicans/Episcopals?

[c659smith]

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.

Exactly to accept an unrepentant and sinful act into a church as a way of life and in conforming to God is in contradiction with all that Christ taught.

 

[Contarini]

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.

No, I don’t realize any such thing, because it is not true. The blessing was not intended as a sacramental marriage. It was very carefully calculated to be something less than that. I am not defending the action. I’m simply saying that even today the C of E retains serious misgivings about remarriage after divorce. Are you aware that C. S. Lewis and Joy Davidman were denied marriage by the Bishop of Oxford? And this was fully in keeping with the normal practice of the C of E.

Catholics have a huge misconception here. The C of E has not historically countenanced remarriage after divorce. In the Lewis-Davidman case, its stance was in a way stricter than that of the Catholic Church, which would not have regarded Davidman’s first marriage as valid in the first place

Get with the program.

I am not interested in getting with any program. I’m interested in the truth. You should try it sometime.

An Annulment?

The marriage was consumated and Catherine gave him a daughter. An annulment means what to you.

What it means to me is not the point. The point I’m making is that the C of E has historically taught that marriage is indissoluble, Henry VIII’s revolting behavior nonetheless.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

No, I don’t realize any such thing, because it is not true. The blessing was not intended as a sacramental marriage. It was very carefully calculated to be something less than that. I am not defending the action. I’m simply saying that even today the C of E retains serious misgivings about remarriage after divorce. Are you aware that C. S. Lewis and Joy Davidman were denied marriage by the Bishop of Oxford? And this was fully in keeping with the normal practice of the C of E.

Catholics have a huge misconception here. The C of E has not historically countenanced remarriage after divorce. In the Lewis-Davidman case, its stance was in a way stricter than that of the Catholic Church, which would not have regarded Davidman’s first marriage as valid in the first place

The present Queen of England took a lot of heat as Head of the Church in the 1950s for her participation in the decision not to allow her sister, Princess Margaret, to Mary Peter Townsend, who had been divorced.

 

[c659smith]

No, I don’t realize any such thing, because it is not true. The blessing was not intended as a sacramental marriage. It was very carefully calculated to be something less than that. I am not defending the action. I’m simply saying that even today the C of E retains serious misgivings about remarriage after divorce. Are you aware that C. S. Lewis and Joy Davidman were denied marriage by the Bishop of Oxford? And this was fully in keeping with the normal practice of the C of E.

Catholics have a huge misconception here. The C of E has not historically countenanced remarriage after divorce. In the Lewis-Davidman case, its stance was in a way stricter than that of the Catholic Church, which would not have regarded Davidman’s first marriage as valid in the first place

I am not interested in getting with any program. I’m interested in the truth. You should try it sometime.

What it means to me is not the point. The point I’m making is that the C of E has historically taught that marriage is indissoluble, Henry VIII’s revolting behavior nonetheless.

Edwin

It is a Church’s position to bless a marriage. The Church is not being married or joining anything. A priest is not necessary here. That is a convenant between one man and woman before God. The Church and other witnesses are there to confirm such a covenant has taken place and to receive the blessing of their marriage by the Church as a true Sacrament of Matrimony.

To believe otherwise is to say a divorce between a man and woman involves the church.

On the other hand a church to give it’s blessings (graces from the Holy Spirit) to one who intends to committ adultery is aiding and abetting to that sin.

What is your definition of Blessed?

On the other hand an annulment is that a valid marriage has not taken place such as where there is deception or forced. Even the Catholic Church states a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic in an Anglican Church is valid if made before God without deception of cohersion.

 

[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.

History sort of gets in the way of these kinds of opinions. In order for Henry and Catherine to wed (a thing Henry was not originally in favor of), a dispensation was required to remove the impediment of affinity between them, arising from the fact they were in-laws. At the time, impediments of affinity went out at least to the 7th (IIRC) degree, and Henry and Catherine faced a relationship in the first degree. So, Julius issued a (poorly worded) dispensation. Poorly worded in that it did not specifically dispense from the impediment of the justice of public honesty, as was required if Arthur’s and Catherine’s marriage was not consummated. That it was not, is, of course, what Catherine always claimed, and it was probably true. Which left the impediment of the justice of public honesty undispensed. Such an impediment was certainly a diriment one, but it remained undispensed, even so.

Henry never took that approach. From the beginning, he rested his causa on the Levitical Prohibition, which he came to believe was ultra vires, beyond the power of the Pope to dispense. There are such impediments; whether that was one the Church has held differing opinions on. But even Campeggio said Henry’s point was a sincere conviction.

On the larger historical point, decrees of nullity were issued daily, on the flimsiest of causa, to make and break dynastic marriages. Henry’s older sister received two, the two husbands of his younger sister received 3 between them. It was how the world worked, then. And, politics being what it was, what Charles did was how the world worked, too.

And the issue of confiscation of Church property came years after he sought his decree of nullity. Which he fully expected to get. It was how the system worked.

I really suggest some historical reading on the times. Scarisbrick is an excellent start.

GKC

 

[c659smith]

History sort of gets in the way of these kinds of opinions. In order for Henry and Catherine to wed (a thing Henry was not origianlly in favor of), a dispensation was required to remove the impediment of affinity between them, arising from the fact they were in-laws. At the time, impediments of affinity went out at least to the 7th (IIRC) degree, and Henry and Catherine faced a relationship in the first degree. So, Julius issued a (poorly worded) dispensation. Poorly worded in that it did not specifically dispense from the impediment of the justice of public honesty, as was required if Arthur’s and Catherine’s marriage was not consummated. That it was not, is, of course, what Catherine always claimed, and it was probably true. Which left the impediment of the justice of public honesty undispensed. Such an impediment was certainly a diriment one, but it remained undispensed, even so.

Henry never took that approach. From the beginning, he rested his causa on the Levitical Prohibition, which he came to believe was ultra vires, beyond the power of the Pope to dispense. There are such impediments; whether that was one the Church has held differing opinions on. But even Campeggio said Henry’s point was a sincere conviction.

On the larger historical point, decrees of nullity were issued daily, on the flimsiest of causa, to make and break dynastic marriages. Henry’s older sister received two, the two husbands of his younger sister received 3 between them. It was how the world worked, then. And, politics being what it was, what Charles did was how the world worked, too.

And the issue of confiscation of Church property came years after he sought his decree of nullity. Which he fully expected to get. It was how the system worked.

I really suggest some historical reading on the times. Scarisbrick is an excellent start.

GKC

Look you can make or twist anything you want but it does not change the facts the Catholic Church was removed and priests and Bishops murdered immediately after King Henry the 8ths decree that he was head of the Church.

I can read and have read history and know this was a tyrant to whom cared little for Human life but for the pleasures and riches of this life and as such am sure he will meet with the richest of these desires with Satan.

Anglicans were founded by King Henry the 8th not Christ. to deny this is to deny history.

 

[GKC]

Look you can make or twist anything you want but it does not change the facts the Catholic Church was removed and priests and Bishops murdered immediately after King Henry the 8ths decree that he was head of the Church.

I can read and have read history and know this was a tyrant to whom cared little for Human life but for the pleasures and riches of this life and as such am sure he will meet with the richest of these desires with Satan.

Anglicans were founded by King Henry the 8th not Christ. to deny this is to deny history.

And, as I noted it’s best to actually know history, and not wave cardboard cutouts. As Newman implied.

Do try Scarisbrick. He really is good. And he’s not pro-Henry. He’s pro-history. Which we all should be.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Look you can make or twist anything you want but it does not change the facts the Catholic Church was removed and priests and Bishops murdered immediately after King Henry the 8ths decree that he was head of the Church.

what parts of what gkc said were twisting history? can you be more specific about what his account got factually wrong? it seems to me you’re just changing the topic from the frequency of dynastic annulments to whether henry was a “tyrant” or not. of course he was a tyrant. name another ruler of that era who wasn’t.

 

[c659smith]

what parts of what gkc said were twisting history? can you be more specific about what his account got factually wrong? it seems to me you’re just changing the topic from the frequency of dynastic annulments to whether henry was a “tyrant” or not. of course he was a tyrant. name another ruler of that era who wasn’t.

Pope Paul III (February 29, 1468 – November 10, 1549), born Alessandro Farnese, was Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 1534 to his death 1549. He also called the Council of Trent in 1545.
In 1536, Paul III invited nine eminent prelates, distinguished by learning and piety alike, to act in committee and to report on the reformation and rebuilding of the Church. In 1537 they turned in their celebrated Concilium de emendenda ecclesia (in J. le Plat, Monumenta ad historiam Concilii Tridentini, ii. 596–597, Leuven, 1782), exposing gross abuses in the Curia, in the church administration and public worship; and proffering many a bold and earnest word on behalf of abolishing such abuses. This report was printed not only at Rome, but at Strasburg and elsewhere.

On May 29, 1537 Paul III promulgated the papal bull Sublimus Dei against the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

 

[tomarin]

Pope Paul III (February 29, 1468 – November 10, 1549), born Alessandro Farnese, was Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 1534 to his death 1549. He also called the Council of Trent in 1545.

that’s all well and good, but what does it have to do with what gkc said about annulments?

 

[GKC]

Pope Paul III (February 29, 1468 – November 10, 1549), born Alessandro Farnese, was Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 1534 to his death 1549. He also called the Council of Trent in 1545.
In 1536, Paul III invited nine eminent prelates, distinguished by learning and piety alike, to act in committee and to report on the reformation and rebuilding of the Church. In 1537 they turned in their celebrated Concilium de emendenda ecclesia (in J. le Plat, Monumenta ad historiam Concilii Tridentini, ii. 596–597, Leuven, 1782), exposing gross abuses in the Curia, in the church administration and public worship; and proffering many a bold and earnest word on behalf of abolishing such abuses. This report was printed not only at Rome, but at Strasburg and elsewhere.

On May 29, 1537 Paul III promulgated the papal bull Sublimus Dei against the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

And, in Trent, Session 24, the first steps were taken toward reforming the system of impediments, annulments and dispensations.

GKC

 

[Camron]

nitpick: the proper term is “Episcopalians”

I always thought “Episco-pals” would be a good cartoon, though.

The San Francisco-Episco-Pals…

 

[chris_molter]

The San Francisco-Episco-Pals…

Yeah, that one would probably have an NC-17 rating or worse. It probably wouldn’t be on the Saturday morning lineup for kids

Talk about damaging to young minds…

 

[East_Anglican]

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.

Really?

So what?

Is. 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.

Very funny.

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

Is this the same Tony Blair that legalized gay ‘marriage’ in England and called it ‘cival partnership’

Is this the same Tony Blair who voted against lowering the point of viability so more abortions can take place?

Is this the same Tony Blair who had the law changed so that Roman Catholic adoption agencies have to give children to gay couples or risk prosecution?

Is this the same Tony Blair who lied to the British parliament to send us into an unjust illegal war?

If he’s a typical Roman Catholic, I will never become one.

 

[Mickey]

Is this the same Tony Blair that legalized gay ‘marriage’ in England and called it ‘cival partnership’

Is this the same Tony Blair who voted against lowering the point of viability so more abortions can take place?

Is this the same Tony Blair who had the law changed so that Roman Catholic adoption agencies have to give children to gay couples or risk prosecution?

Ouch! I did not realize he did such things.

 

[mercygate]

Ouch! I did not realize he did such things.

There was a thread about him. Let the record show that he did that before he came over. That doesn’t exactly give me the warm and fuzzies but it’s something.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Mickey]

There was a thread about him. Let the record show that he did that before he came over. That doesn’t exactly give me the warm and fuzzies but it’s something.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Let us pray that he has experienced a metanoia.

 

[chris_molter]

If he’s a typical Roman Catholic, I will never become one.

All those things he did when he was a member of the CofE. Of course, we can’t know one way or another if he’s actually repudiated those beliefs which conflict with Catholic teaching, so we can only pray for him.

 

[tomarin]

All those things he did when he was a member of the CofE. Of course, we can’t know one way or another if he’s actually repudiated those beliefs which conflict with Catholic teaching, so we can only pray for him.

he was regularly attending catholic mass with his catholic wife and family, however. keep in mind that his job at the time required him not to be catholic.

 

[SIA]

All those things he did when he was a member of the CofE. Of course, we can’t know one way or another if he’s actually repudiated those beliefs which conflict with Catholic teaching, so we can only pray for him.

Oh sure, let’s just blame it all on the CoE. Now that he is RC, his views have all miraculously changed on all these counts. Not. Why do you folks have such a difficult time calling a spade a spade?