G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Also, did you miss this line in the post to which you replied?
Are you Episcopalian or Catholic?
**These people walked out of the sickening Episcopal Church **
- Status
**These people walked out of the sickening Episcopal Church **
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
“Marriage” is a Sacrament.
Marriage is obviously between “One Man and One Woman”.
There could never be anyone “Christian” that would be for “gay marriage”.
The term does not exist.
Gays just need to get creative with their own term - or go with “Civil Union”.
The term “Marriage” is taken.
(why is that so hard to understand?).
It shall never change.
Marriage is obviously between “One Man and One Woman”.
There could never be anyone “Christian” that would be for “gay marriage”.
The term does not exist.
Gays just need to get creative with their own term - or go with “Civil Union”.
The term “Marriage” is taken.
(why is that so hard to understand?).
It shall never change.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Gurney,
It is very disturbing to see you so proud of your ugliness towards other Christians…
Peace!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I couldn’t agree more! Amen…my only question is, to whom are you commenting or replying with this post?
J
Justy90
Guest
With all due respect to Episcopalians here such as yourself, Gurney is attempting to point out to a couple of very smug and arrogant people in here that want discourse and misunderstanding across the board to prevail over logical and cordial dialogue that ACNA Anglicans and Episcopalians are very different in nature and are in no way to be blended together in the conversation. Those that Gurney is trying to make a point to are attempting to discredit anyone who is Anglican, Episcopal, ACNA or ortherwise. It’s a sad day when those who claim that the Roman church is central to the One Church that Christ established have to throw mud on others to make themselves appear shinier.
J
Justy90
Guest
Enough of your nonsensical insults and rhetoric Elvis. If you cannot bring respectful converation, then maybe you should just keep quiet. I think everyone here knows by now that you are nothing more than an obsessed cheap shot artist with nothing in mind but to insult and discredit anyone who is Protestant or even Orthodox with untruths and cheap played out rhetorical garbage.
J
Justy90
Guest
Thank you for a fair look at what is being thrown around in here. It’s surely good to see someone who is intelligent and fair, but not arrogantHello Elvis, bee-bop a loola!
Unfaithful, rebellious, British monarch…Well, the English would point out that there was a Celtic Church presence in the British Isles prior to the papacy taking over in England. From their point of view they were simply regaining control of the Church to the times before Roman dominance. I would point out also that the Orthodox churches throughout the Slavic, Russian, Eastern block lands are very ethnic and influenced heavily by monarchs throughout the centuries. Constantine did his share of influence and control. If you would’ve asked who was in charge of the holy, catholic Church back in his day, I wonder what Constantine would’ve said? The pope? Unlikely. And from an Orthodox point of view, the RCC started in 1054 with the absurd excommunication fiasco and thus, in a sense, it was man-made and that the Orthodox are the one, true, church founded by Christ. From the RCC point of view, the Orthodox started this all and walked away, so their bishop in a sense was the first founder of that Church. Pointing out how raunchy Hank VIII was is irrelevent to the significance and catholicity of the Anglican Church IMO. I don’t think Justy is “angry” as you put it. He’s just tired of having the Anglican church dumped on in here. Your profile shows you are “hardcore Catholic” as opposed to a Roman Catholic, just Roman Catholic. He perhaps is the “hardcore Anglican.”
M
Madaglan
Guest
I’ve never really understood Anglicanism.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
There is no pre-papcy Church.
J
Justy90
Guest
Baloney. He just proved otherwise. The Celtics worshipped long before the Romans ever came to the British Isles.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Are you saying my Oxford Dictionary of Popes is wrong?
How can that be since it was written by J. N. D. Kelley an Anglican scholar and cleric?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
JND Kelly is an outstanding Anglican scholar; you are correct. I’m surprised you would read an Anglican since you’ve made it clear you completely dislike the Anglican Church and find it so puzzling and full of lost sheep? In any case, Kelly is outstanding. Read Early Christian Doctrines by Kelly and he discusses the papacy at length and the various opinions that surrounded it in the early days, both for and against. Like many Anglican historians, he’s very honest and diligent, looking for the truth and not out to inform an agenda he already cooked up like so many authors of different denominations. If you read “The Catholic Religion” by the late great Anglican cleric Vernon Staley, he discusses the Celtic Church that was already in the British Isles prior to the Roman presence. Also, if you read Study of Anglicanism by John Booty, they discuss the same history as well as the History of the Church in England by John Moorman, also an Anglican, he discusses it.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
If you define the papacy as one sovereign universal pontiff that has power over all other bishops which essentially makes bishops not descendents of the apostles but vassals of the pope, an infallible pontiff with far-reaching control and power, that came about around the Middle Ages. There has always been a Bishop of Rome but to say there was no “pre papacy Church” isn’t really accurate. When did the Bishop of Rome really start to be considered a pontiff over all bishops? Certainly not in the first five or six centuries when the Celtic Church was in England…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I have Jane on ignore since we’ve had horrifically bad exchanges, long story. Yet I see what she says about me from time to time through the quotes of other people. She apparently thinks I like to “brag” about my hurtful, evil comments about others…sigh…I never comment on her posts and stopped doing so actually before the ignore button. But she feels compelled to always comment on my posts, even when we were “friends.”
Ay yay yay?I’m not bragging, period. I’m merely pointing out the ABSURDITY that someone would call ME an Episcopalian after all I have said about the TEC and my objections to their lunatic presiding “bishopress” and the lawsuits, abortion-love, gay ‘marriage’ agenda, and anything-goes ‘theology.’ It’s a theology that makes a mockery of Christ in so many ways. It’s a denomination that wants all the frills with none of the demands of Christendom. I have made it very clear how I feel, that’s all, and yet the other poster thought I was an Episcopalian? I just thought it was ironic and hilarious? Jane, as usual, didn’t. There’s a big difference between ACNA Anglicans, the Anglicans I know and love, and the Episcopalians, which are spurious, dangerous, and downright scary to me.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
There is no credible scholarship that describes a Celtic Church such as you describe. It’s a post reformation fantasy much like the “Trail of Blood” myth held by some Baptists.
E
elvisman
Guest
Sorry, but you need to study your history.Hello Elvis, bee-bop a loola!
Unfaithful, rebellious, British monarch…Well, the English would point out that there was a Celtic Church presence in the British Isles prior to the papacy taking over in England. From their point of view they were simply regaining control of the Church to the times before Roman dominance. I would point out also that the Orthodox churches throughout the Slavic, Russian, Eastern block lands are very ethnic and influenced heavily by monarchs throughout the centuries. Constantine did his share of influence and control. If you would’ve asked who was in charge of the holy, catholic Church back in his day, I wonder what Constantine would’ve said? The pope? Unlikely. And from an Orthodox point of view, the RCC started in 1054 with the absurd excommunication fiasco and thus, in a sense, it was man-made and that the Orthodox are the one, true, church founded by Christ. From the RCC point of view, the Orthodox started this all and walked away, so their bishop in a sense was the first founder of that Church. Pointing out how raunchy Hank VIII was is irrelevent to the significance and catholicity of the Anglican Church IMO. I don’t think Justy is “angry” as you put it. He’s just tired of having the Anglican church dumped on in here. Your profile shows you are “hardcore Catholic” as opposed to a Roman Catholic, just Roman Catholic. He perhaps is the “hardcore Anglican.”
I have heard the fallacy that Constantine was the head of the Church by spewed from the mouths of anti-Catholic Protestants but when I read this tripe from the mouth of a person who professes to be a Roman Catholic - I simply have no patience.
To those of you who continue to proliferate the fallacy that Constantine was in charge of the Church - or that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine, I have only this to say:
PROVE IT.
E
elvisman
Guest
I read a lot of your posts that rant on about how everybody else on this forum is uncharitable, hateful and acrimonious. Have you ever looked in a mirror? It is YOU who has displayed all of these things.
Now, I ask you again:
If you really think that the Orthodox Church is the One, True Early Church of christ - why do you choose to belong to a church that was started by a man in the 16th century instead of the Orthodox church?
If you can’t answer the question, you’re just another angry, igniorant anti-Catholic with nothing to contribute to the conversation.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
When Jesus gave instructions to the disciples regarding the Church in Matthew 18, did the Church in fact exist at that time? Was there a papacy at that time? How does the reality that the term which is translated into English as church, the term “ecclesia” simply means assembly and applied to all manner of assemblies so that it was even used to refer to assemblies such as the assembly in court proceedings, effect such a statement that there was no pre-papacy Church? Surely you don’t mean that there was no pre-papacy ecclesias for quite obviously there were assemblies not just before the Church but even before Christ. So, when did the Church (as distinct from just any other assembly/ecclesia) come into existance? Was it at Pentecost or before? And when did the Papacy come into existence?
And how does any of this relate to gay marriage?
J
Justy90
Guest
ignore.
J
Justy90
Guest
You don’t honestly believe that.
- Status