Which Christian denominations support Gay Marriage?

[Justy90]

That’s a mighty broad brush you’ve painted Anglicans with.

Since the Anglican Communion does not have a valid priesthood everything they do is done by the laity. Since Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders they don’t have the Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, or Anointing of the Sick. They have the same two Sacraments as any other Protestant denomination: Baptism and Marriage.

He stated the facts in all of Anglicanism which is far different from what you just spewed. You nor your church has any authority or God given right to declare who has a valid priesthood or who is in Apostolic Succession. He stated facts, you aim to demoralize and insult. Big difference.

 

[1holycatholic]

He stated the facts in all of Anglicanism which is far different from what you just spewed. You nor your church has any authority or God given right to declare who has a valid priesthood or who is in Apostolic Succession. He stated facts, you aim to demoralize and insult. Big difference.

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, does, in fact, have that authority.

 

[adrift]

My apologies for confusing you with someone else. However, my statements are not unsubstantiated. They may be from sources that Catholics do not like for whatever reason, but the are supported. I find here that many Catholics do not like certain news sources and do not like much of the media for obvious reasons I’m sure.

I haven’t seen you provide a source.

I’d watch throwing the word homosexual around like its only a liberal Protestants problem. The absolute most homosexuality that has taken place has ironically been in the Catholic church. From the child sex abuse scandal that turned rampid over decades all the way down to Catholic monisteries being the oldest know homosexual clubs for men. You speak out strongly against it but yet the stain of it is bigger on you than on anyone else

The first sentence is one I can agree. We are all sinners and homosexuals are across the board. BUT the rest is garbage which you have not substantiated. Sources that support your statement do have to stand up to scrutiny. Even the source I provided I would expect to have inspected and maybe disputed. The sources I used were not Catholic in nature. I would expect a source from you that was neutral that is neither a source pro to Catholics not anti.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s a mighty broad brush you’ve painted Anglicans with.

Since the Anglican Communion does not have a valid priesthood everything they do is done by the laity. Since Anglicans do not have valid Holy Orders they don’t have the Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, or Anointing of the Sick. They have the same two Sacraments as any other Protestant denomination: Baptism and Marriage.

You doubtlessly are citing Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders null and void. This is a tired argument on CAF and I’m burned out on reading it. First of all you should read Saepious Officio, the official Anglican rebuttal to Leo’s pronouncement. In scholarship, ecumenical tone, and charity as well as in apologetics, it is far superior to A.C.
ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

Secondly, I’d encourage you to realize that the Anglicans in North America and beyond participated in consecrations with the Old Catholic Church early in the Twentieth Century that gave apostolic succession to priests in the Anglican Communion through those lines anyway. I personally think Anglican orders were perfectly valid prior to the Utrecht consecrations, the “Dutch Touch” but if there was any doubt (and I don’t have any) then the Dutch Touch would’ve done the trick.

Your statement that everything is done by the laity is ambiguous to me. Anglicans have priests that celebrate over their sacraments. Only in Sydney Australia is there a diocese that believes in lay consecrations, nowhere else?

And before you say that all Anglicans (in another broad-brush special) only believe in two sacraments, talk to some high church folks and see what they have to say about that…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, does, in fact, have that authority.

What happened to the Orthodox? Did they get vaporized?

 

[1holycatholic]

You doubtlessly are citing Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders null and void. This is a tired argument on CAF and I’m burned out on reading it. First of all you should read Saepious Officio, the official Anglican rebuttal to Leo’s pronouncement. In scholarship, ecumenical tone, and charity as well as in apologetics, it is far superior to A.C.
ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

Secondly, I’d encourage you to realize that the Anglicans in North America and beyond participated in consecrations with the Old Catholic Church early in the Twentieth Century that gave apostolic succession to priests in the Anglican Communion through those lines anyway. I personally think Anglican orders were perfectly valid prior to the Utrecht consecrations, the “Dutch Touch” but if there was any doubt (and I don’t have any) then the Dutch Touch would’ve done the trick.

Your statement that everything is done by the laity is ambiguous to me. Anglicans have priests that celebrate over their sacraments. Only in Sydney Australia is there a diocese that believes in lay consecrations, nowhere else?

And before you say that all Anglicans (in another broad-brush special) only believe in two sacraments, talk to some high church folks and see what they have to say about that…

It doesn’t matter if they believe they have all Sacraments or not. Anglican ordinations are not valid. Validly ordained converts like Alberto Cutie are exceptions rather than the rule, and there is no valid ordination he could receive in the Anglican Communion even if received from a convert who was validly ordained to the episcopacy outside of the Anglican Communion.

While it’s possible that a man holding valid orders obtained outside of the Anglican Communion could celebrate some of the Sacraments in the Anglican Communion, he would be an exception rather than the rule.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, does, in fact, have that authority.

Such a statement belongs in another thread. It is irrelevant to the issues that were the original focus of this thread. Please don’t make this just another thread about who IS and who IS NOT recognized as valid. We know that in the eyes of Catholics that you are the only ones who are. And by now you should realize that the rest of the world doesn’t accept your version of ecclessiology as being any truer than any one else’s. Going round and round on it, just obfuscates the original discussion that I thought was still the focus of this thread.

 

[Justy90]

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, does, in fact, have that authority.

You can keep saying that and I’ll keep denying it. Circular reasoning does not create truth. Nobody gave a singular institution that power. God didn’t intend for any of us to tell another that their worship and their reverance to the one soverign God almighty isn’t sanctioned and therefore made invalid as declared by one institutional power who has declared itself exclusive in such matters. I can’t do that and you can’t do that. Apostolic Succession went and goes well beyond the Church in Rome.

 

[Justy90]

You doubtlessly are citing Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders null and void. This is a tired argument on CAF and I’m burned out on reading it. First of all you should read Saepious Officio, the official Anglican rebuttal to Leo’s pronouncement. In scholarship, ecumenical tone, and charity as well as in apologetics, it is far superior to A.C.
ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

Secondly, I’d encourage you to realize that the Anglicans in North America and beyond participated in consecrations with the Old Catholic Church early in the Twentieth Century that gave apostolic succession to priests in the Anglican Communion through those lines anyway. I personally think Anglican orders were perfectly valid prior to the Utrecht consecrations, the “Dutch Touch” but if there was any doubt (and I don’t have any) then the Dutch Touch would’ve done the trick.

Your statement that everything is done by the laity is ambiguous to me. Anglicans have priests that celebrate over their sacraments. Only in Sydney Australia is there a diocese that believes in lay consecrations, nowhere else?

And before you say that all Anglicans (in another broad-brush special) only believe in two sacraments, talk to some high church folks and see what they have to say about that…

Very well put. Many don’t have a clue just how liturgical and Sacremental an Anglican high-church Eucharist is. I attended one in Northern Michigan 2 years ago and it was more Catholic-like than any Catholic mass I had ever attended in my many years as a cradle Catholic if that is at all possible. It was pristine.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, does, in fact, have that authority.

Such a statement belongs in another thread. It is irrelevant to the issues that were the original focus of this thread. Please don’t make this just another thread about who IS and who IS NOT recognized as valid. We know that in the eyes of Catholics that you are the only ones who are. And by now you should realize that the rest of the world doesn’t accept your version of ecclessiology as being any truer than any one else’s. Going round and round on it, just obfuscates the original discussion that I thought was still the focus of this thread.

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/97382/1/Christ-Giving-The-Keys-To-St.-Peter-$28consegna-Delle-Chiavi$29.jpg
“Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter” **(Consegna delle chiavi) **by Perugino (Pietro Vannucci), fresco, Sistine Chapel, Vatican(1480-81).

Hello Grace Seeker,

I don’t believe that 1holycatholic’s comment here is irrelevant. I believe that it is absolutely relevant to this discussion. It is relevant because, any opinions made within the context of Christianity, on issues like abortion or homosexual “marriage” and so on, are opinions, which are rooted in faith and morals.

On issues like these, there can only be one right answer. Homosexual “marriage” for instance, cannot be accepted on one hand and rejected on the other. There is only one moral answer, as to whether or not this behavior would be “acceptable in God’s eyes”. There can only one Christian answer.

When a determination is made whether or not a particular human behavior is a sin….and in Christianity that’s what we call it when someone breaks one of God’s Laws, a sin; the foundation for that decision is based on one thing and the one thing is “Authority”, the authority granted to Christ’s Church here on earth. Without this authority any opinion regarding faith and morals which fall outside of the Church’s teachings, are meaningless.

In other words, if some other non-Catholic Christian denomination determines that Homosexual “Marriage” is not a sin, the first thing I want to know is where do they derive their authority to make such a claim?

That is why the errant, protestant belief, which allows for “person interpretation” of the Bible, has been a disaster for Christianity and why it has caused so much confusion and division.

The bases for the Catholic Church’s authority, on the matters of faith and morals is recorded in the Bible.

I hope this helps.

 

[RevDrNorth]

You doubtlessly are citing Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders null and void. This is a tired argument on CAF and I’m burned out on reading it. First of all you should read Saepious Officio, the official Anglican rebuttal to Leo’s pronouncement. In scholarship, ecumenical tone, and charity as well as in apologetics, it is far superior to A.C.
ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

Secondly, I’d encourage you to realize that the Anglicans in North America and beyond participated in consecrations with the Old Catholic Church early in the Twentieth Century that gave apostolic succession to priests in the Anglican Communion through those lines anyway. I personally think Anglican orders were perfectly valid prior to the Utrecht consecrations, the “Dutch Touch” but if there was any doubt (and I don’t have any) then the Dutch Touch would’ve done the trick.

Your statement that everything is done by the laity is ambiguous to me. Anglicans have priests that celebrate over their sacraments. Only in Sydney Australia is there a diocese that believes in lay consecrations, nowhere else?

And before you say that all Anglicans (in another broad-brush special) only believe in two sacraments, talk to some high church folks and see what they have to say about that…

Quite true. There was debate as to whether Leo was actually correct before he made the pronouncement. Even so, as you point out Leo’s statement coming from the late 19th century was somewhat made moot by the infusion of Old Catholic orders in the mid twentieth century not only within the Anglican Communion but within several of the continuing Anglican Churches who have for example the Chambers succession. The RCC recognizes the Old Catholic orders as valid (for example the PNCC). So there were in the 20th century validly consecrated Anglican Bishops who have ordained valid Anglican priests, etc. If they were anyone BUT Anglicans they would be considered to have valid orders.

However, Benedict XVI has reaffirmed for Roman Catholics that the Papal statement of Leo is still valid. So for RCC that is fine they must accept that whether or not it has any factually basis. It is true for RCC and that should be all that matters…to RCC. You will have to excuse others for smirking at it.

Somehow I doubt Anglicans are loosing much sleep.

PS My guess is that much of what drove Leo in the late 19th century had to do less with facts and more with politics. The British were becoming the most powerful nation on earth eventually controlling 1/4 of the earth’s surface and all of its oceans. To have Anglicans with recognized orders might have caused problem in terms of conversions, especially in the new world (North America) where switching to a more socially acceptable church would have drained off numbers of Catholics seeking to blend in, etc. This is probably why even some Catholic theologians disagreed with Leo at the time in terms of whether orders were factually invalid. Leo’s argument is really NOT substantial and would in fact invalidate Catholic orders as well.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hello Grace Seeker,

I don’t believe that 1holycatholic’s comment here is irrelevant. I believe that it is absolutely relevant to this discussion. It is relevant because, any opinions made within the context of Christianity, on issues like abortion or homosexual “marriage” and so on, are opinions, which are rooted in faith and morals.

On issues like these, there can only be one right answer. Homosexual “marriage” for instance, cannot be accepted on one hand and rejected on the other. There is only one moral answer, as to whether or not this behavior would be “acceptable in God’s eyes”. There can only one Christian answer.

Jimmy B, if this is the sort of discussion you wanted to have, then fine. You did make the original post, I see.

But, in my defense, here is why I thought the change in the conversation had become irrelevant. Your original question, as the OP, you may recall was:

Which Christian denominations support Gay Marriage? Here a list that I have put together based on various internet sources, whose reliability, I’m not quite sure of. So, Please let me know if this information is inaccurate. Thank you!

You don’t have to express an opinion about the rightness nor the wrongness of gay marriage to answer this question. It is even less relevant whether church A has the truth or not in it’s position or if church B does. The question is not about why the churches/denominations have their views. Nor is it about whether their views are compatible with either scripture or any other teaching. The question is simply about whcih denominations support gay marriage. Discussing terms like what is meant by “support” or “gay marriage” might be helpful in articulating the nuances of some of those denominational positions. But you may establish beyond a shadow of a doubt to every protestant’s satisfaction that THE Catholic Church administered from the Holy See in the Vatican is the one and only source of all valid Christian teaching and further that it is against any and all forms of gay marriage; yet doing so will not have any any form address your actual opeing post. That’s why I felt like the majority of this discssion was, in fact, irrelevant. (I’m afraid, this post included.)

 

[Justy90]

Quite true. There was debate as to whether Leo was actually correct before he made the pronouncement. Even so, as you point out Leo’s statement coming from the late 19th century was somewhat made moot by the infusion of Old Catholic orders in the mid twentieth century not only within the Anglican Communion but within several of the continuing Anglican Churches who have for example the Chambers succession. The RCC recognizes the Old Catholic orders as valid (for example the PNCC). So there were in the 20th century validly consecrated Anglican Bishops who have ordained valid Anglican priests, etc. If they were anyone BUT Anglicans they would be considered to have valid orders.

However, Benedict XVI has reaffirmed for Roman Catholics that the Papal statement of Leo is still valid. So for RCC that is fine they must accept that whether or not it has any factually basis. It is true for RCC and that should be all that matters…to RCC. You will have to excuse others for smirking at it.

Somehow I doubt Anglicans are loosing much sleep.

PS My guess is that much of what drove Leo in the late 19th century had to do less with facts and more with politics. The British were becoming the most powerful nation on earth eventually controlling 1/4 of the earth’s surface and all of its oceans. To have Anglicans with recognized orders might have caused problem in terms of conversions, especially in the new world (North America) where switching to a more socially acceptable church would have drained off numbers of Catholics seeking to blend in, etc. This is probably why even some Catholic theologians disagreed with Leo at the time in terms of whether orders were factually invalid. Leo’s argument is really NOT substantial and would in fact invalidate Catholic orders as well.

And as with most things in the Catholic church, politics plays a major role. It did in 1054, it did again with King Henry and also with Pope Leo’s decree. It is happening still today. .

 

[Justy90]

I haven’t seen you provide a source.

The first sentence is one I can agree. We are all sinners and homosexuals are across the board. BUT the rest is garbage which you have not substantiated. Sources that support your statement do have to stand up to scrutiny. Even the source I provided I would expect to have inspected and maybe disputed. The sources I used were not Catholic in nature. I would expect a source from you that was neutral that is neither a source pro to Catholics not anti.

These are well known facts that many have known for literally centuries. NPR reported early in 2008 that 107 Catholic clergy had been convicted of sex crimes against minors. It is a logical conclusion that the number has increased since. Many major newspapers around the country including the Boston Globe have reported that the Roman Catholic church has paid out more than a Billion dollars in damages to the vitims and families of these crimes. This is unprecidented. Irrelevant is pondering whether a source should be considered pro or anti Catholic. No politics needed, only facts and there they are.

 

[1holycatholic]

These are well known facts that many have known for literally centuries. NPR reported early in 2008 that 107 Catholic clergy had been convicted of sex crimes against minors. It is a logical conclusion that the number has increased since. Many major newspapers around the country including the Boston Globe have reported that the Roman Catholic church has paid out more than a Billion dollars in damages to the vitims and families of these crimes. This is unprecidented. Irrelevant is pondering whether a source should be considered pro or anti Catholic. No politics needed, only facts and there they are.

Irrelevant.

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, exercises the authority given to her by Christ.

CCCC #16
The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, that is, to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and to the bishops in communion with him. To this Magisterium, which in the service of the Word of God enjoys the certain charism of truth, belongs also the task of defining dogmas which are formulations of the truths contained in divine Revelation. This authority of the Magisterium also extends to those truths necessarily connected with Revelation.
The Church speaks with Christ’s authority when it proclaims that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

 

[Justy90]

Irrelevant.

The Catholic Church, the one and only Church established by Christ, exercises the authority given to her by Christ.

So then it is your position that this authority validates the sexual abuses against minors? It must be because you stated that my post was irrelevant.

 

[Justy90]

The Church speaks with Christ’s authority when it proclaims that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The Church doesn’t make this proclamation, the Bible does.

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic:

The Church speaks with Christ’s authority when it proclaims that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The Church doesn’t make this proclamation, the Bible does.

When you refer to the Bible you are honoring the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church from which it proceeds.

 

[Mannyfit75]

When you refer to the Bible you are honoring the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church from which it proceeds.

You pwned him!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When you refer to the Bible you are honoring the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church from which it proceeds.

When you say that the Bible came from the Catholic Church, you mean the original Catholic Church that included not only the Roman Latin side but also the Orthodox as well correct? Origen, an eastern Christian was the first to really codify the Scriptures and produce a corrected Septuagint. Much scholarship and hard work in producing the Bible was not only a Roman achievement but also Eastern scholarship and (name removed by moderator)ut was evident (i.e. the Alexandrian Fathers, etc.). Your post says Catholic Church, which I’m sure you meant to include the Orthodox East at the time, not just Rome…