P
Peter_J
Guest
Of course, we Catholics could go one step further and say that the Real real Church of England isn’t Anglican at all but Roman Catholic.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to be a bandwagon jumper, but I love GKC’s posts too.
E
englishredrose
Guest
Of course, we Catholics could go one step further and say that the Real real Church of England isn’t Anglican at all but Roman Catholic.
playin’ at it u mean… some of us aren’t Roman Catholic thru and thru even if many think they are playin’ at it by taking what they like and refuting what they don’t like of the Catholic Church. My time on here help me see that all the more. I am 100% Church of England, the Real Church of England. I do not pinch what I like from Catholics. I enjoy freedom and being free
and am a very liberal Church of England member at that since am not at strict about things as my fellow congregation on churchy stuff but some of them enjoy playin’ at being Catholic though serious in their eyes I will admitt. By playing I mean take what they agree with but don’t follow thru with what you are all taught… Our church was more Catholic than any Catholic Church thru some wanting it that way. But no offence to you guys, this priest is bringing us back in line with Church of England right from his first/second week with us he started the changes. 
no offence mean there at all.
C
commenter
Guest
- I usually find the Anglican and Lutheran threads so interesting, they cause me to neglect my duties around the house, yard, etc. I have to ration my time on them.
(I mean, I limit my household repairs and yard cutting, not limit Forum time). - I agree with the praise for GKC. His insights are intelligent (like mine), charitable (not like mine) and concise (so not, not like mine). I beg a question for him or anyone more informed than me. Virtueonline is a major website with a traditional critique of Anglican/Episcopal trends, especially in the USA. It is promoted in my area. I have found it interesting, but I don’t know how fair or accurate it is, since I so little know the context and fear biased interpreters, even when they are conservative like me. Is it reliable?
M
MaryT777
Guest
Of course!Of course, we Catholics could go one step further and say that the Real real Church of England isn’t Anglican at all but Roman Catholic.
I
Indifferently
Guest
Virtue Online is a good site - David Virtue promotes a generous orthodoxy which includes both evangelicals and Anglo Catholics (and orthodox bible believers in between like me - and the site is generally good-humoured and captures something of the English character only found in Anglicanism.
G
GKC
Guest
And he appreciates your kind statement, as he has said above, to others.
And I will jump on the band wagon with myself, to reiterate that these sort of kind words, said of me and the posts I put my name under, have raised my spirits from the state of mild doldrums they have been in for a while. My thanks to all. I will try to merit them.
GKC, less doldrumish.
G
GKC
Guest
Leans to the evangelical side. But I read it regularly.
I would not hesitate to recommend it, recognizing that it is the voice of the orthodox Anglican, and more so the evangelical than the AC. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
You should see my more verbose efforts. I promise you: scribble, scribble, scribble. As when I dug into the impediment system. Run on for miles, I do.
And thank you.
GKC
B
Bergon
Guest
I don’t think the Church of England will die. It will probably not continue in a way that people would’ve recognised it 20-30 years ago. They have allowed women to be ordained as deacons and priests. Even if they haven’t done it yet, they will ordain women as bishops. Hitherto they have made pastoral provision for those clergy and laity who in conscience couldn’t accept female clergy. It seems that provision is going to disappear with the ordination of women bishops. There are going to be evangelicals and catholics in the Church of England who will feel no longer welcome in the Church of England.
In the near future I suspect the Church of England will accept homosexuals among the clergy. Obviously, there is more than likely homosexual clergy but I think the Church of England will eventually accept openly homosexual clergy just as its US Anglican cousin already does.
The Church of England has always accepted a diverse range of worship styles and theological praxis consequently it isn’t new for the Church of England to be able to accommodate many and varied beliefs. It’s always struck me that the Church of England seems to permit its members to chose to believe what they want and to not believe anything that doesn’t suit them.
In the near future I suspect the Church of England will accept homosexuals among the clergy. Obviously, there is more than likely homosexual clergy but I think the Church of England will eventually accept openly homosexual clergy just as its US Anglican cousin already does.
The Church of England has always accepted a diverse range of worship styles and theological praxis consequently it isn’t new for the Church of England to be able to accommodate many and varied beliefs. It’s always struck me that the Church of England seems to permit its members to chose to believe what they want and to not believe anything that doesn’t suit them.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, I suppose the CofE likes to think of a local church as a gathering in communion of the Christians of that place, rather than a sort of Southern Baptist view that a church is defined by the exclusivity of its beliefs. But as to the idea that the Church of England “permits” its members to think one thing or another, that seems to me to go quite counter to the spirit of that church.
B
Bergon
Guest
I don’t believe the Church of England has any central authority that regulates doctrine in the same way as the Catholic Church. I recall watching a discussion on TV involving several senior churchmen from a number of Christian groups. One of those participating in the discussion was the CofE’s fourth most senior bishop who claimed Christ’s Ressurection was only a metaphor. If a very senior bishop says that something that is fundamental to Christian belief is optional really tells you all you need to know about CofE belief.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Durham has a habit of falling into the hands of interesting academics. If you are referring to David Jenkins (and it sounds very likely) he liked to challenge thought with what one might charitably call unconventional statements, but they were usually part of a richer discussion. I suspect his statement about the Resurrection was somewhat more nuanced than “it’s just a metaphor”. And anyway a statement by one bishop, however senior, certainly doesn’t tell me all I need to know about the Church of England. But each to his own. Your first sentence is, of course, manifestly correct.
B
Bergon
Guest
Yes, his answer was “nuanced”. He was responding to a question in the like manner to a politician. The interviewer pushed him several times: do you believe in the Resurrection of Christ? From the Bishop of Durham a one word answer was all that was required - yes! What he did was ‘disguise’ his “no” by trying to confuse everyone with science as they say or in the case, theology. I find his response and behaviour characteristic of the Church of England. I find it disingenuous when people say well it was only one man’s opinion. I think we can find out what any Church believes from what its senior prelates say.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Yes, when theologians speak, the way they address issues often seems to me to be practising sleight of hand, but I’ve always assumed that’s my ignorance rather than their duplicity; at least I hope it’s not their duplicity. Nonetheless I fully understand your point of view. But if you are accusing me of being disingenuous I think that’s not particularly well mannered of you.
P
Peter_J
Guest
At least you’ve still got your skin. I feel like I’m going to jump out of mine every time I hear “No one expects the Lutherans!”
B
Bergon
Guest
Not you particularly but everyone who makes the type of statement that “it’s only the words of one [very senior] cleric not the view of …”. Are we to accept that he (1) doesn’t represent the view of his church or (2) that his church allows him to go around expounding any old opinion? I watched the interview with David Jenkins. I’ll fully admit to not understanding theological jargon but he was using it in exactly the same way a politician gives a convoluted answer rather than give a direct no. If he believed in the resurrection why couldn’t he give a simple yes. He didn’t answer the question once. He was asked several times and the interviewer asked him, for the benefit of viewers without training in theology, to give a simple yes or no. Why would he have avoided saying ‘yes’? It wouldn’t have made the headlines in the following morning papers carrying a story that bishop believes in Resurrection. There’s no doubt in my mind that he was saying it doesn’t matter whether we believe in the Resurrection - now that would have made the headlines: bishop denies Resurrection.
Let’s assume David Jenkins was making a profound theological argument beyond my comprehension. Then we have Rowan Williams and his statement on Sharia Law. Perhaps the senior clergy of the Church of England should take the hint: if you want to tell us something then make it plain and if you believe something have the courage of your conviction rather than disguising it in terms people don’t understand.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Well, I might throw the towel in as far as David Jenkins is concerned – he’s a difficult case, I agree, and anyway I’m not at all sure I could talk about the Resurrection here in terms that either of us would find palatable. But Dr Williams? What on earth was wrong or heterodox about his lecture on sharia? As I recall – and, my, it’s a long time ago now – he was talking about how the secular law could find room for religious conscience; I seem to remember him instancing conscientious objectors, and the right of medical staff to decline to take part in abortions. Quite a prescient choice of subject, really – today he might be talking about a Catholic organisation’s right to decline to pay for contraceptive care, or a church’s right not to marry a same-sex couple. I can’t recall that I was very sympathetic to his line of argument (I often am not). And I definitely remember the less scrupulous press making a nonsensical hoo-ha, the way they always do if the word “Muslim” is mentioned in their hearing. But I don’t remember anything he said being against orthodox Christian thought. Where am I wrong?
B
Bergon
Guest
I do not recall saying that Rowan Williams made a heterodox statement. Please demonstrate where I did this. Then I will make any appropriate retractions, corrections and apologies.
The point I believe I was trying to make was that Drs Williams and Jenkins were both making convoluted statements, which the likes of me find far too complex to understand.
- Status