Why would you NOT want to be Anglican?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rita88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
michaeldaniels said:
Honestly…I do not see how anyone…ever, could be duped into becoming Anglican…and I don’t understand how those raised Anglican do not convert to Catholicism…The whole existence of Anglicanism/Episcopalians is rooted in a Syphyllis infested, sex craved, self serving, hedonistic, overweight, control freak known as Henry VIII…a man once known as the Fidei Defensor, who quickly abandoned the Pope and the Church when he was not released from his sacramental vows to his wife. Why would anyone on God’s green earth follow such an obviously man made religion when they know the whole story.
Click to expand...
Do you watch “The Tudors”?
 
Gisella said:
40.png
michaeldaniels:
Honestly…I do not see how anyone…ever, could be duped into becoming Anglican…and I don’t understand how those raised Anglican do not convert to Catholicism…The whole existence of Anglicanism/Episcopalians is rooted in a Syphyllis infested, sex craved, self serving, hedonistic, overweight, control freak known as Henry VIII…a man once known as the Fidei Defensor, who quickly abandoned the Pope and the Church when he was not released from his sacramental vows to his wife. Why would anyone on God’s green earth follow such an obviously man made religion when they know the whole story.
Click to expand...
Do you watch “The Tudors”?
Click to expand...
I know you weren’t asking me, but, no, I don’t watch it because I’ve heard that it’s not quite historically accurate. I *have *read several non-fiction, history books by several different authors about the Tudors. That’s not a totally off-base assessment.

My friend is a deacon in the Pittsburgh diocese - one that will probably leave ECUSA after their General Conference in November. Bishop Robert Duncan has his head on straight, after all. 😉

I came extraordinarily close to being Anglican, but I’m in a MUCH more liberal diocese and couldn’t in good conscience sit under someone who agreed with, and whose bishop approved, VGR’s episcopacy. :rolleyes: Then God hit me square between the eyes with a Holy 2x4 about my issue with Authority, and that pretty much settled it for me. 😃
 
I would probably make a good Anglican (I’m a United Methodist). But I don’t have a Volvo…😃

O+
 
O.S.Luke said:
I would probably make a good Anglican (I’m a United Methodist). But I don’t have a Volvo…😃

O+
Click to expand...
Didn’t the Methodists break away from Anglicanism? Does anyone know the history, because Methodists and Anglicans seem fairly similar and Wesley had a lot of very interesting ideas (i.e. the Wesleyan Quadrilateral).
 
1234 said:
Sorry, dears,

but

there is only
One*** True…

set of wheels!!!

the

Subaru!!

All others are False Gods!!!
Click to expand...
Ah, but this contradicts the Scriptures, which teach us plainly that Jesus and the Apostles were all in one Accord. Clearly, Honda is the divinely appointed automobile. 😛
 
Pixie_Dust said:
I know you weren’t asking me, but, no, I don’t watch it because I’ve heard that it’s not quite historically accurate. I *have *read several non-fiction, history books by several different authors about the Tudors. That’s not a totally off-base assessment.

My friend is a deacon in the Pittsburgh diocese - one that will probably leave ECUSA after their General Conference in November. Bishop Robert Duncan has his head on straight, after all. 😉

I came extraordinarily close to being Anglican, but I’m in a MUCH more liberal diocese and couldn’t in good conscience sit under someone who agreed with, and whose bishop approved, VGR’s episcopacy. :rolleyes: Then God hit me square between the eyes with a Holy 2x4 about my issue with Authority, and that pretty much settled it for me. 😃
Click to expand...
It’s not historically accurate when it comes to names and dates, but it sure depicts the sex-craved, hedonistic, egotistical Henry. Anyway, I just watch it for Charles Brandon. lol
 
nsper7 said:
Didn’t the Methodists break away from Anglicanism? Does anyone know the history, because Methodists and Anglicans seem fairly similar and Wesley had a lot of very interesting ideas (i.e. the Wesleyan Quadrilateral).
Click to expand...
Methodism started as a movement in Anglicanism and morphed into a church of its own. As far as theology and doctrine, there are very few differences. Both of the Wesley brothers actually died Anglican priests in good standing.

I have an 17-year old BMW, a Nissan Maxima, and an old motorcycle. I dunno where I fit, vehicle-wise. 😃
 
1234 said:
Ha!

Have you ever read Dorothy Sayers’ mystery, “The Nine Tailors”?

It centers around bells and includes a bell choir. The BBC production on DVD is also very good.

Dorothy Sayers was a devout Anglican, btw.
Click to expand...

She was also no mean amateur theologian 🙂​

 
O.S.Luke said:
Methodism started as a movement in Anglicanism and morphed into a church of its own. As far as theology and doctrine, there are very few differences. Both of the Wesley brothers actually died Anglican priests in good standing.

I have an 17-year old BMW, a Nissan Maxima, and an old motorcycle. I dunno where I fit, vehicle-wise. 😃
Click to expand...
Interesting. Why is Methodism unwilling to return to the Communion? There is always room for more. I’m not trying to prosletyze, just wondering, esp. if the supposed founders Methodism as Anglican Priests.
 
Actually, there are already Eucharistic sharing agreements between United Methodists and the Episcopal Church, and a covenant between the Anglican and British Methodist Church. Those are steps in the right direction.

More here.
 
jmcrae said:
Do you have any evidence for this accusation? In any case, nobody thinks that the Pope “founded” the Catholic Church - it was founded by Christ.

It has sinners in it, but it was not originally established upon the excusing of sin.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying that alligators have large teeth but don’t mean to chew up people’s pets and eat them. If the Roman Catholic church was and is “the” church, then these horrible acts of abuse would have never happened. The gates of hell would not prevail against it. Truth is, it is just as vulnerable as any other denomination because it is just that; a denomination. It is merely one piece of the puzzle.
 
Gisella said:
It’s not historically accurate when it comes to names and dates, but it sure depicts the sex-craved, hedonistic, egotistical Henry. Anyway, I just watch it for Charles Brandon. lol
Click to expand...
The BBC series portrayal of Henry is excellent.

I don’t think that he was sex-crazed or hedonistic. He badly needed a male heir to preserve the Tudor dynasty and prevent the horrible War of the Roses from returning. He had an illegitimate son, often enough for his generation, who would have been fine, had he been legitimate, and a lot of dead sons out of Katherine…and a peculiar marriage with her, his brother’s widow, which itself had been annulled by the pope to enable Henry’s marriage to her…and a spiky conscience…and the handsome and ambitious Ann Boleyn. If Katherine hadn’t been the niece of the Holy Roman Emperor, who held a knife at the pope’s throat, the divorce might have gone through.

Of course Henry was egotistical. He was the King of England.
 
SIA said:
That’s like saying that alligators have large teeth but don’t mean to chew up people’s pets and eat them. If the Roman Catholic church was and is “the” church, then these horrible acts of abuse would have never happened. The gates of hell would not prevail against it. Truth is, it is just as vulnerable as any other denomination because it is just that; a denomination. It is merely one piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...
Really? Like Peter’s horrible act of refusing to eat with Gentiles should never have happened if he was truly an apostle?

Like the vicious disagreement between the Apostles that led to that first Council in Jerusalem should never have happened if they were truly the one Church?

So they were merely heads of denominations and NOT the leaders of Christ’s own true Church? Because of their own acts and the evil acts of people like Ananias and Sapphira and Simon Magus who claimed to be Christ’s followers and members of the Apostolic Church?

Doesn’t seem like there’s ANY true Church in existence at all if we are to believe you, it’s disappeared in a puff of smoke. Neither you nor the gates of Hell seem to know precisely what it IS that they need to prevail against.

This doesn’t sound at all like the Christ who promised to give His very own authority to His apostles and to be with His church until the end of the age, does it?
 
jmcrae said:
Ah, but this contradicts the Scriptures, which teach us plainly that Jesus and the Apostles were all in one Accord. Clearly, Honda is the divinely appointed automobile. 😛
Click to expand...
That’s probably one of those late interpolations!

😛
 
1234 said:
The BBC series portrayal of Henry is excellent.

I don’t think that he was sex-crazed or hedonistic. He badly needed a male heir to preserve the Tudor dynasty and prevent the horrible War of the Roses from returning. He had an illegitimate son, often enough for his generation, who would have been fine, had he been legitimate, and a lot of dead sons out of Katherine…and a peculiar marriage with her, his brother’s widow, which itself had been annulled by the pope to enable Henry’s marriage to her…and a spiky conscience…and the handsome and ambitious Ann Boleyn. If Katherine hadn’t been the niece of the Holy Roman Emperor, who held a knife at the pope’s throat, the divorce might have gone through.

Of course Henry was egotistical. He was the King of England.
Click to expand...
Henry was actively considering advancing Henry Fitzroy as his heir, in spite of the small impediment of illegitimacy. His creation as Duke of Richmond and Earl Somerset (even the titles have royal connotations), when he was declared the ranking peer of the realm, save only any sons born after from Henry, was a clue to what the King was thinking. He couldn’t change Mary’s sex; maybe he could perfume Fitzroy, shop him around, as Mary had been, and secure a suitable royal match, then declare him the heir. Would probably have worked, in a stronger, more established dynasty.

Later he got what he considered a better idea. And certainly he had no reason to suspect his petition for a decree of nullity (not a divorce) would run into what it did. What he sought was granted literally all the time. Smacking into the Holy Roman Emperor was not so common.

And Henry’s marriage to Katherine was permitted by a dispensation (not annulment), the nature of which became the point of Henry’s *causa *

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top