To the Roman Catholics who want to throw some anglicans off the board for women pries

[Colabomb]

Why don't you want to throw off the Eastern Orthodox for denying The Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, and his Infallibility on matters of Faith and morals? Surely you believe their opinion is contrary to tradition.

Why is our differing from your Tradition any different than theirs?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I don't know. Sounds silly to me, this forum isn't another OBOB and I think that all Christians who claim to have apostolic succession should be free to post here.

[L3g3nd]

According to Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops and priests have ceased to have valid holy orders, and thus Anglicanism no longer has true apostolic succession. This is not even a matter of female priests (though the Church also teaches that no one has the authority to ordain a woman).

[Colabomb]

According to Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops and priests have ceased to have valid holy orders, and thus Anglicanism no longer has true apostolic succession. This is not even a matter of female priests (though the Church also teaches that no one has the authority to ordain a woman).

Brother I am referring to certain people who advocate removing those of us who support women's ordination, even though the person who requested the forum, a Catholic, wanted us here anyway.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

According to Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops and priests have ceased to have valid holy orders, and thus Anglicanism no longer has true apostolic succession. This is not even a matter of female priests (though the Church also teaches that no one has the authority to ordain a woman).
But this isn't a Roman Catholic forum, so why should a papal bull determine who can post here? Forgive me, I was acting under the assumption that this was a forum for all Christians who claimed the historic episcopate. Whether they actually have it or not is up for debate.

[Colabomb]

I wouldn't dare push myself on Obob, that is your Place.

This is OUR place. It is shared. No position is considered RIGHT on this place. Our Articles and our Traditions have no more or less authority than yours.

This is supposed to be a place where we have equal footing, and can share equally.

[WarriorAngel]

How many threads are you going to post about this?

Is it a daily thing now?

IS this an over dramatization?

Lets see...this is about one week old this is the only subject you have made new threads about.

[xristos.anesti]

How many threads are you going to post about this?

Is it a daily thing now?

IS this an over dramatization?

Lets see...this is about one week old this is the only subject you have made new threads about.

I actually agree with this -

Before I get accused of patronising with Latins (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Media/Imperial-March.mp3)^_^ I seriously think that Colabomb you got it somewhat wrong -

If you wish we will sign a statutory declaration :)

Seriously brother, I see no problem...

[Colabomb]

Actually I have posted in many THreads, including one on Predestination, one on Deuterocanonical Verses one on Anglicanism and protestantism one on The modern History of Anglicanism, and I started threads on the Canon and Bible Translations.

This is hardly the only thing I've posted on. But I've been reading the rather intense thread about how we should be removed.... And I'm not feeling the Love so to speak.

[a_ntv]

According to Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops and priests have ceased to have valid holy orders, and thus Anglicanism no longer has true apostolic succession. This is not even a matter of female priests (though the Church also teaches that no one has the authority to ordain a woman).

The issue is not if the Anglican have or not a true apostolic succession, but which tradition to look at for the definition of "apostolic succession" in this forum.

Since Leo XIII many things changed: nowayday (since about the 1920) lots of Anglican bishops (including ad instance Rowan Williams) can trace back their apostolic succession to Old Catholics, which bishops have surely a valid apostolic ordination.

Again: the issue is not the validity of each apostolic succession, but the importance of the tradition.

I know that the Anglicans are very divided about this issue: I hope this forum will be the home of the ones attached to the ancient tradition: this forum is not the whole CF, but simply a proteced area for fellowship.

[L3g3nd]

But this isn't a Roman Catholic forum, so why should a papal bull determine who can post here? Forgive me, I was acting under the assumption that this was a forum for all Christians who claimed the historic episcopate. Whether they actually have it or not is up for debate.

I mentioned the papal bull as another potential Catholic reason for arguing against apostolic succession in Anglicanism; I wasn't arguing that a papal bull should be a determining factor in deciding who posts on this board. Either way, I seem to have misunderstood the OP's main point as well as the underlying issue here, as a_ntv pointed out.

I apologize for throwing us off track.

[WarriorAngel]

I wonder...would it help you if I made a thread apologizing for the misunderstanding?