Will the Church of England die?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully one day the Anglican Church will seek to be restored to the One True Church ,as all other Protestants and schismatic churchs ,especially the Eastern Orthodox who as Blessed soon to be St.Pope John Paul 2nd has said is" the non breathing lung of the Church".So that all believers may be one ,as Our Lord has willed and commanded.
 
manualman said:
That’s too easy a shot. I’d say it’s what happens when you make theological and doctrinal decisions based on how people feel about things rather than what Scripture and Tradition examined in the light of reason (and THEN scrutinized with a pastoral eye) come up with. CoE doesn’t so much lack a spine as they lack a prioritization between how people feel and how an issue is treated in Revelation. Being nice has somehow come to mean more than being faithful. That’s a mistake in theology more than a lack of courage.
Click to expand...
The CofE’s position is as follows:
  • In the voting in the House of Lords not one single Bishop supported the same-sex leglislation
  • the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill would see marriage “abolished, redefined and recreated”. Speaking on the first day of the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, Archbishop Welby warned: “The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of a marriage as covenant is diminshed. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society . . . is weakened.”
  • The Catholic Bishops thanked the Lords for the amendments which provided additional protections to all faith communities: Archbishop Vincent Nichols said : Amendments made in the House of Lords though have significantly strengthened the legal protections in the Act for the Churches
 
GKC said:
That was indeed how Hank thought; as did all. The idea of a divorce was unknown. Not that a marriage couldn’t be merely ignored, but a valid marriage could not be dissolved. Except by way of proving it an invalid marriage sacramentally. Hence the wide-spread net of possible impediments that were in play by Henry’s day. Henry played the game as it was meant to be played, with a causa as good as was generally used. But the whole system, being an intertwining of politics and theology (as was most things, in the day) responded by working as it was designed to do: consider the political impact as part of the decision.
…
Click to expand...
Christ never meant for there to be games played in regards to marriage. I certainly can believe that powerful and connected people in history have been able to “play” a game and connive a declaration using sophistry and deception, but the simple fact is that there ARE impediments that can stand in the way of the validity of marriage. If some people in history (and today!) treat that as a game to be played, much the greater tragedy. Decrees of nullity were never meant to be a game though. They were meant to separate out putative marriages that actually were invalid from unhappy but valid unions. Discerning the difference is important to being faithful to Christ’s words regarding the permanence of marriage, no?

Perhaps you meant that royals and clerics of the day exploited the system as a game? That I certainly believe. Some things never change.
 
GKC, “motley” applies wherever you find people, not just anglicans. 😉

liturgylover: was the article incorrect in noting that CoE lobbied to include provisions for gays to have adoption rights? Thanks for the actual record on how the vote went though.
 
Glad to see there is no lack of Christian love and charity among those who disagree with their fellow Christians in the Anglican communion. :rolleyes:
 
manualman said:
GKC, “motley” applies wherever you find people, not just anglicans. 😉

liturgylover: was the article incorrect in noting that CoE lobbied to include provisions for gays to have adoption rights? Thanks for the actual record on how the vote went though.
Click to expand...
I think it was:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6293115.stm

*The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its bid to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.
Catholic leaders in England and Wales say its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair.

They say "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning*
 
manualman said:
Christ never meant for there to be games played in regards to marriage. I certainly can believe that powerful and connected people in history have been able to “play” a game and connive a declaration using sophistry and deception, but the simple fact is that there ARE impediments that can stand in the way of the validity of marriage. If some people in history (and today!) treat that as a game to be played, much the greater tragedy. Decrees of nullity were never meant to be a game though. They were meant to separate out putative marriages that actually were invalid from unhappy but valid unions. Discerning the difference is important to being faithful to Christ’s words regarding the permanence of marriage, no?

Perhaps you meant that royals and clerics of the day exploited the system as a game? That I certainly believe. Some things never change.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The system in the day was designed to do two things simultaneously: permit the making and breaking of marriages, particularly dynastic marriages, as reasons of state and convenience required, while permitting the Church to maintain control of matrimony as a sacrament. The system of impediments, dispensations, and decrees of nullity was formulated, and constantly changed to permit these two things to happen. It was what how the system was meant to work. Henry’s causa, that his marriage to Katherine rested on an invalid dispensation, from Julius, that was ultra vires, beyond anyone’s power to dispense. And that was a point (the Levetical prohibition) on which the Church had made differing decisions, over the years, see Kelly/THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII. And that was without taking into consideration the stronger case of a diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, also lurking in Julius’ dispensation.

The system was designed to permit the finding of a decree of nullity, when politically necessary, by spreading the net of impediments very, very wide. As a Scottish Archbishop of the times said, it was almost impossible to find a couple in the upper classes, that could marry without fear of an impediment, somewhere. So it was designed to be. Trent, Session XXIV, began to cut it down to size. Reform it, even.

To say that Henry played the game according to the rules is merely to say that he did what the system was designed to permit him to do. And he expected to receive his decree, just as his sister Margaret had received hers, shortly before, for flimsier reasons. But the system was also designed to take into account real politics. Enter Charles.

I refer you both to my favorite, Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII (which has a surprise in it), and, for brain-numbing complexity, Kelly’s book, above.

GKC
 
manualman said:
GKC, “motley” applies wherever you find people, not just anglicans. 😉

liturgylover: was the article incorrect in noting that CoE lobbied to include provisions for gays to have adoption rights? Thanks for the actual record on how the vote went though.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are the exemplars.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Anglicans are the exemplars.

GKC
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. For every Spong you have, we have a Kung and a Curran. We just enjoy a structure in which black sheep can be identified as such (and sometimes even actually are!)

And, as you noted in the nullity criteria historical record above, flawed humans trying to circumvent revelation have been present throughout Christian history. Right back to Judas Iscariot and that Peter guy who said “Jesus Who?” when accused of being a disciple. 😊
 
In regards to the Church of England ,they who are in the Anglican Church who think they are true Catholics are mistaken ,or who believe they have a valid Eucharist are also mistaken.Because their Orders were declaired invalid in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII and remain so.Due to the Anglicans break with Apostolic succession and changing the ordination rite .Plus their lack and theological misunderstanding of the true nature of the Eucharist.
 
GKC said:
Not exactly. The system in the day was designed to do two things simultaneously: permit the making and breaking of marriages, particularly dynastic marriages, as reasons of state and convenience required, while permitting the Church to maintain control of matrimony as a sacrament. The system of impediments, dispensations, and decrees of nullity was formulated, and constantly changed to permit these two things to happen. It was what how the system was meant to work. Henry’s causa, that his marriage to Katherine rested on an invalid dispensation, from Julius, that was ultra vires, beyond anyone’s power to dispense. And that was a point (the Levetical prohibition) on which the Church had made differing decisions, over the years, see Kelly/THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII. And that was without taking into consideration the stronger case of a diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, also lurking in Julius’ dispensation.

The system was designed to permit the finding of a decree of nullity, when politically necessary, by spreading the net of impediments very, very wide. As a Scottish Archbishop of the times said, it was almost impossible to find a couple in the upper classes, that could marry without fear of an impediment, somewhere. So it was designed to be. Trent, Session XXIV, began to cut it down to size. Reform it, even.

To say that Henry played the game according to the rules is merely to say that he did what the system was designed to permit him to do. And he expected to receive his decree, just as his sister Margaret had received hers, shortly before, for flimsier reasons. But the system was also designed to take into account real politics. Enter Charles.

I refer you both to my favorite, Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII (which has a surprise in it), and, for brain-numbing complexity, Kelly’s book, above.

GKC
Click to expand...
GKC - your knowledge and the beautful way you write adds grace and dignity to every thread you contribute to. I love reading your posts.
 
liturgyluver said:
GKC - your knowledge and the beautful way you write adds grace and dignity to every thread you contribute to. I love reading your posts.
Click to expand...
I wish he would write something longer and more permanent than a message board post.
 
tomarin said:
I wish he would write something longer and more permanent than a message board post.
Click to expand...
I’ve written some really long posts, in my day. But that is a kind thing to say.

I do recommend books. It’s where I get my stuff. Lots and lots of books. Acquired around 100 of them in the past 3 weeks.

GKC
 
liturgyluver said:
GKC - your knowledge and the beautful way you write adds grace and dignity to every thread you contribute to. I love reading your posts.
Click to expand...
Given my past week, this and any similar posts, are particularly timely.

And very much appreciated.

GKC
 
manualman said:
Not so sure about that. For every Spong you have, we have a Kung and a Curran. We just enjoy a structure in which black sheep can be identified as such (and sometimes even actually are!)

And, as you noted in the nullity criteria historical record above, flawed humans trying to circumvent revelation have been present throughout Christian history. Right back to Judas Iscariot and that Peter guy who said “Jesus Who?” when accused of being a disciple. 😊
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I can imagine the RCC, less motely.

Hard for me to do the same for the home folks.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top