Are we just....

[Colabomb]

It seems to me that many Christians seem to pop in and out of Anglicanism based on their whims. I've seen a few Liberal Catholics come here, play anglican a while and then pop right back to rome once they "figured it out".

I've seen Catholic Christians advise other Catholics that they are "really Anglican" whenever they come to any difficulty with Roman orthodoxy, or if they fall into some heresy like denying the Resurrection.

Are we just the penalty box? do people just use us as some sort of stopgap until they "get it all together"?

How many people, even posters here on STR, have gone off to Rome or the East because they felt that we were illegitimate in some manner?

Sorry to vent my frustrations, but I'm beginning to feel that I'm the only one who takes the Anglican Tradition seriously, on its own merits, not as (the joke goes) "Catholic lite".

eh, its almost midnight, chew over it more in the morning.

[Secundulus]

It seems to me that many Christians seem to pop in and out of Anglicanism based on their whims. I've seen a few Liberal Catholics come here, play anglican a while and then pop right back to rome once they "figured it out".

I've seen Catholic Christians advise other Catholics that they are "really Anglican" whenever they come to any difficulty with Roman orthodoxy, or if they fall into some heresy like denying the Resurrection.

Are we just the penalty box? do people just use us as some sort of stopgap until they "get it all together"?

How many people, even posters here on STR, have gone off to Rome or the East because they felt that we were illegitimate in some manner?

Sorry to vent my frustrations, but I'm beginning to feel that I'm the only one who takes the Anglican Tradition seriously, on its own merits, not as (the joke goes) "Catholic lite".

eh, its almost midnight, chew over it more in the morning.

The Anglican Tradition "The Middle Way" was originally held together by the power and prestige of the British throne.

Since the demise of the British Empire that power and prestige no longer exist as the glue to counteract the tension. The inevitable is happening and the Communion is flying apart.

So what does Anglicanism mean anymore? It is beginning to appear that it means whatever you want it to mean. That's probably why others seem to stop in here when they have difficulty with Rome.

Do you want to be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ? Well, then Anglicanism is for you. They even have active Bishops who do not believe in the Nicene Creed.

[longhair75]

I respectfully disagree with our brother Segundulus. I was a member of the Church of Rome for forty five years before I finally had enough. I wandered for a few years, and when I finally found the Episcopal Church I realized that I was where I was meant to be.

I was like coming home to a warm blanket and a cup of hot chocolate after a long walk in the cold, dark night.

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm beginning to feel that I'm the only one who takes the Anglican Tradition seriously, on its own merits, not as (the joke goes) "Catholic lite".

I'm with you, Cola!

[Secundulus]

So what does Anglicanism mean anymore? It is beginning to appear that it means whatever you want it to mean.

Quote from an Anglican Bishop on what an Anglican Priest told him when he first came into the Church.

One day when I was ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re not asking you do so something against your integrity.'

[AngCath]

I am a proud Episcopalian who loves the Anglican tradition.

[ContraMundum]

I agree with Cola and longhair.

[ContraMundum]

Quote from an Anglican Bishop on what an Anglican Priest told him when he first came into the Church.

One day when I was ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re not asking you do so something against your integrity.'


Rome is just as bad, if not worse. I was told by a diocesan leader for evangelism and RCIA that it was ok for someone to be a Muslim, and that their office had helped someone become Muslim, and would gladly do it again for any person on any "spiriutal journey"...and that basically included any religion.

Also, it is no secret that many in the Vatican dissaprove of the TAC joining Rome on the basis that they are too conservative for the liberal branch of the RCC.

[longhair75]

friend Segundulus writes: One day when I was ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re not asking you do so something against your integrity.'

My parting with Rome was full of acrimony and bitterness, and I try very hard not to post negatively about abuses within the Church of Rome, but if you think all Roman Bishops are free of error, you might need to do some more research......

[Albion]

Sorry to vent my frustrations, but I'm beginning to feel that I'm the only one who takes the Anglican Tradition seriously, on its own merits, not as (the joke goes) "Catholic lite".


I agree with you, Cola, but perhaps you can take heart from the fact that you are reflecting upon only the liberal edge of Anglicanism as it has come to be in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and a few other provinces. For most of the Anglican world, and for most Anglicans in the world, there is not that ambivalence, antinomianism, and latitudinarianism that you are writing about. And as you know, a church (TEC) that has lost 2/3 of its members in the past two generations for the very reasons you are concerned about can't be considered the 'shape of things to come' in Anglicanism, to say the least.

[Secundulus]

friend Segundulus writes:

My parting with Rome was full of acrimony and bitterness, and I try very hard not to post negatively about abuses within the Church of Rome, but if you think all Roman Bishops are free of error, you might need to do some more research......

I am not under the illusion that any body of Christians on this earth is the perfect realization of the Church that Christ created.

But the Church is supposed to be the body of Christ united in corporate worship. How does a body survive if its parts are disconnected from one another?

The Church is not groupings of individuals here and there doing what seems right in their own eyes. Or was St. Paul in error in the way he described the Church?

This morning I was thinking about the Judges of Israel. The Judges were imperfect sinners, many of whose actions would be a disgrace in any time and place. But yet, they were selected by God to lead the people of Israel in his way.

But the people were not satisfied with doing it in God's way. They wanted a King, and despite God's warning them that this was not his way, they chose to ignore his warning and take a King. The history of Israel was downhill from there.

Christ wanted a united body of believers which he called his Church on earth. But we choose to do it our own way and remain at odds with one another. Is there a parallel in these two situations? I think there is.

Also, its not as if this idea is original with TAC. Until just a couple of decades ago this was being pursued with seriousness by Canterbury itself.

[No Swansong]

The Anglican Tradition "The Middle Way" was originally held together by the power and prestige of the British throne.

Since the demise of the British Empire that power and prestige no longer exist as the glue to counteract the tension. The inevitable is happening and the Communion is flying apart.

So what does Anglicanism mean anymore? It is beginning to appear that it means whatever you want it to mean. That's probably why others seem to stop in here when they have difficulty with Rome.

Do you want to be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ? Well, then Anglicanism is for you. They even have active Bishops who do not believe in the Nicene Creed.
They even have Anglicans who believe the Pope is infallible.

[Secundulus]

They even have Anglicans who believe the Pope is infallible.

LOL . . . Touche

[longhair75]

friend Segundulus,Christ wanted a united body of believers which he called his Church on earth. But we choose to do it our own way and remain at odds with one another. Is there a parallel in these two situations? I think there is.

Rome's idea of unity is that we all submit to the authority of Rome.

At my small Episcopal Church. our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are welcome at our table. We are not welcome at theirs. Who then are working towards unity rather than requiring submission?

[Colabomb]

friend Segundulus,

Rome's idea of unity is that we all submit to the authority of Rome.

At my small Episcopal Church. our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are welcome at our table. We are not welcome at theirs. Who then are working towards unity rather than requiring submission?

Exactly.

[Secundulus]

friend Segundulus,

Rome's idea of unity is that we all submit to the authority of Rome.

At my small Episcopal Church. our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are welcome at our table. We are not welcome at theirs. Who then are working towards unity rather than requiring submission?

I believe the body needs a head. Now, we all realize that the head of this body is Christ. But the question each has to answer for himself is whether or not the body has a head on earth also.

The Romans will say that the head is the Pope. I believe that even Anglicans are willing to acknowledge him as the first among equals, even if at the same time we ignore everything he says. Protestants will say that there is no head on earth. I have looked at both models and decided for myself which promotes unity and which promotes division.

[longhair75]

Friend Segudulus

I wish you very well in your decision. As for me, there is no return to the authority of Rome.

[Secundulus]

Friend Segudulus

I wish you very well in your decision. As for me, there is no return to the authority of Rome.

I wish you well also. And who knows, maybe I'm not going anywhere. I am going to follow my Bishop to where that leads.

[bluediamond]

I thought I would share that today I went to an Episcopalian Church service for the first time in about seventeen years. :)

I grew up on and off Anglican in Australia and became confirmed roughly twenty years ago. Since then I've been involved with the Pentecostals and other Non-Denom Churches until I finally left Church altogether... but not the Lord.

I've come to the States to live with my husband and we do minister in a Church group which ministers to the disabled and those crippled in mind, but it's a distance for me to travel and my husband has been very sick so we haven't been going much lately.

I so very much need fellowship and thought today I'd try out the local Episcopalian Church, St Paul's, and I enjoyed it so much. I remembered much of the liturgy and it felt so familiar to me and the people were incredibly friendly... might go back again next week. :)

[Aymn27]

I believe the body needs a head. Now, we all realize that the head of this body is Christ. But the question each has to answer for himself is whether or not the body has a head on earth also.

The Romans will say that the head is the Pope. I believe that even Anglicans are willing to acknowledge him as the first among equals, even if at the same time we ignore everything he says. Protestants will say that there is no head on earth. I have looked at both models and decided for myself which promotes unity and which promotes division.
there can be no unity with a two-headed monster - look at history and see who qualifies as that....just about every major Reformer agrees that the Pope is the anti-Christ....the papacy of the last few decades IS NOT the norm....

[masuwerte]

I thought I would share that today I went to an Episcopalian Church service for the first time in about seventeen years. :)

I grew up on and off Anglican in Australia and became confirmed roughly twenty years ago. Since then I've been involved with the Pentecostals and other Non-Denom Churches until I finally left Church altogether... but not the Lord.

I've come to the States to live with my husband and we do minister in a Church group which ministers to the disabled and those crippled in mind, but it's a distance for me to travel and my husband has been very sick so we haven't been going much lately.

I so very much need fellowship and thought today I'd try out the local Episcopalian Church, St Paul's, and I enjoyed it so much. I remembered much of the liturgy and it felt so familiar to me and the people were incredibly friendly... might go back again next week. :)

I'm glad you found the experience worthwhile. Welcome. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

I thought I would share that today I went to an Episcopalian Church service for the first time in about seventeen years. :)

I grew up on and off Anglican in Australia and became confirmed roughly twenty years ago. Since then I've been involved with the Pentecostals and other Non-Denom Churches until I finally left Church altogether... but not the Lord.

I've come to the States to live with my husband and we do minister in a Church group which ministers to the disabled and those crippled in mind, but it's a distance for me to travel and my husband has been very sick so we haven't been going much lately.

I so very much need fellowship and thought today I'd try out the local Episcopalian Church, St Paul's, and I enjoyed it so much. I remembered much of the liturgy and it felt so familiar to me and the people were incredibly friendly... might go back again next week. :)
That is so lovely to hear, bluediamond! Welcome to the Anglican forum. I'm sorry to hear that your husband is not well. Prayers for him and for you. :prayer:

[No Swansong]

I wish you well also. And who knows, maybe I'm not going anywhere. I am going to follow my Bishop to where that leads.
Secundulus;
To begin with I hope you know I mean nothing but good intentions for you, but I don't really understand this answer. If you do believe in Papal Infallibility as you have stated and you believe that the Pope is the head of the Church on earth then how can you not go to Rome even if your Bishop doesn't? Would you not then be rejecting the Church?

[Fish and Bread]

It seems to me that many Christians seem to pop in and out of Anglicanism based on their whims. I've seen a few Liberal Catholics come here, play anglican a while and then pop right back to rome once they "figured it out".

I've seen Catholic Christians advise other Catholics that they are "really Anglican" whenever they come to any difficulty with Roman orthodoxy, or if they fall into some heresy like denying the Resurrection.

Are we just the penalty box? do people just use us as some sort of stopgap until they "get it all together"?

How many people, even posters here on STR, have gone off to Rome or the East because they felt that we were illegitimate in some manner?

Sorry to vent my frustrations, but I'm beginning to feel that I'm the only one who takes the Anglican Tradition seriously, on its own merits, not as (the joke goes) "Catholic lite".

eh, its almost midnight, chew over it more in the morning.

In some ways Anglicanism might be described as "the most Catholic Protestant group" or "the most Protestant Catholic group". As a result, it's natural that it's going to catch people coming and going from traditions like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It's only natural that someone on their way to Rome from, say, evangelical Protestantism may at first be reluctant to accept all of the Roman Catholic teachings and Anglicanism will seem like an acceptable middle ground, but ultimately may not prove to be. As an alternate example, one could take a Roman Catholic who objects to say, the prohibition on birth control, still wants to have a priest he or she can refer to as a "Father", a liturgical calendar, a belief in the real presence, etc. -- Anglicanism may become home, or it may be temporary on the way back to reconciling with the RCC, or it may be the first step on the eventual road to say evangelical Protestantism.

Anglicanism also, increasingly, is at the middle point between traditional Christianity and deism or liberal humanism. So, again, it's going to catch people who are, knowingly, or more often probably unknowingly, in a mode of transition between two points.

That doesn't mean a core doesn't exist, but it does mean that this is probably always going to be the case as long as Anglicanism exists with the same character as it does at present within a pluralistic religious society where people can convert to things at will. As one poster earlier in the thread noted, Anglicanism was designed to exist under state mandate, trying to embrace everyone by creating a certain malleability and compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism. Even at the time, many would have chosen one or the other if they could have. Now they can and many do. It's not all that surprising. This is not, of course, to say that Anglicanism doesn't have a distinctive character of it's own and a solid base of folks who believe in it and have always been there and will never leave, it does -- but there will probably always be this other group also.

Rome is just as bad, if not worse. I was told by a diocesan leader for evangelism and RCIA that it was ok for someone to be a Muslim, and that their office had helped someone become Muslim, and would gladly do it again for any person on any "spiriutal journey"...and that basically included any religion.

This can be true, in so far as one's parish or diocesan experience goes. However, in Roman Catholicism there is a clear consistent teaching and interpretation from the magisterium on many issues (Granted, some issues are debatable as to whether they've changed), and thus a way things should be that can be objectively demonstrated (if one accepts the initial premises of Roman Catholicism). In other words, one can point to something and objectively say "The evangelism/RCIA guy is getting it wrong" or even "My priest is getting it wrong". It's harder to do that in Anglicanism, because it's purposefully designed to be unclear and blur the edges. So, it's the same in some ways, but not the same in others.


At my small Episcopal Church. our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are welcome at our table. We are not welcome at theirs. Who then are working towards unity rather than requiring submission?

What if I had my own hypothetical church and, as a hypothetical, said "At my church, we let Jews and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, atheists and agnostic, Wiccans and pagans, and so on and so forth become members and participate in all the sacraments. We are not welcome to become members of their groups and participate in all of their sacraments and rituals. Who is working towards unity rather than requiring submission?". What would you say? Why is your statement and question any more valid than my hypothetical? Isn't the reasoning very similar?

[Fish and Bread]

Contra implied that the TAC was more conservative than many of the local ordinaries (bishops) in the Roman Catholic Church and some of the officials in the Vatican. Is it possible, knowing that Pope Benedict XVI is fairly conservative* in some respects, that he may be fast-tracking this entry in order to bring more folks with views similar to his into the RCC and start to tilt it more in his direction?


*I use conservative as shorthand here, but I generally don't like to, when it comes to religion, because people too often confuse religious conservatism with political conservatism. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as a Cardinal, strongly opposed the Iraq War, and I would gather as a traditional Catholic supports welfare-type programs, things that would mark him as a political liberal on foreign policy and economics to some degree, even while being a social conservative.

[Secundulus]

Secundulus;
To begin with I hope you know I mean nothing but good intentions for you, but I don't really understand this answer. If you do believe in Papal Infallibility as you have stated and you believe that the Pope is the head of the Church on earth then how can you not go to Rome even if your Bishop doesn't? Would you not then be rejecting the Church?

Maybe. The truth is that I expect something positive to happen. If it does not then I will worry about it then.

[ChaliceThunder]

I believe the body needs a head. Now, we all realize that the head of this body is Christ. But the question each has to answer for himself is whether or not the body has a head on earth also.

The Romans will say that the head is the Pope. I believe that even Anglicans are willing to acknowledge him as the first among equals, even if at the same time we ignore everything he says. Protestants will say that there is no head on earth. I have looked at both models and decided for myself which promotes unity and which promotes division.
THIS Anglican will not acknowledge the Pope as "first among equals."

The Head of the Church is Jesus.

[karen freeinchristman]

THIS Anglican will not acknowledge the Pope as "first among equals."

The Head of the Church is Jesus.
Me, too. I don't think of the Pope as the 'first among equals'.

[IowaLutheran]

Just to clarify terminology - Rome doesn't believe in "first among equals" as that would imply other bishops have equal power to the Bishop of Rome, and they clearly do not in the Roman Catholic Church. I think the term "first among equals" comes from the way other historic patriarchates (now EO) viewed Rome - Rome is due a primacy of honor, perhaps, but not primacy in terms of jurisdiction.

That reminds me of the eloquent English of the 39 Articles: "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

[Fish and Bread]

Just to clarify terminology - Rome doesn't believe in "first among equals"

It does accept the phrase as accurate, but defines it different than an Anglican would.

That reminds me of the eloquent English of the 39 Articles: "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."He only has jurisdiction in the other realm of England? ;) I know, I know, their phraseology was grammatically correct at the time in which they wrote it. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

'The other realm of England'? oh, that would be the US. ;) ^_^ :sorry:

[No Swansong]

Maybe. The truth is that I expect something positive to happen. If it does not then I will worry about it then.
Sounds like a reasonable plan.

[No Swansong]

THIS Anglican will not acknowledge the Pope as "first among equals."

The Head of the Church is Jesus.

See libs and cons can agree on more than good Chevy Chase movies!!!

[Albion]

Contra implied that the TAC was more conservative than many of the local ordinaries (bishops) in the Roman Catholic Church and some of the officials in the Vatican. Is it possible, knowing that Pope Benedict XVI is fairly conservative* in some respects, that he may be fast-tracking this entry in order to bring more folks with views similar to his into the RCC and start to tilt it more in his direction?

Anything's possible, but let's not put the cart before the horse as always seems to happen with these "Back to Rome" debates. As soon as any idea along these lines surfaces, a chorus of Anglicans and Catholics starts up with "the Church will be reunited at last" talk.

Far from there being any "fast-tracking" all we have is a very recent proposal sent to Rome asking her to receive some Anglican converts. There's no breakthrough in that. There is no proposal to negotiate. Abp Hepworth said that. Nothing is on the table.

And why is that, after two or so years of trying to work something out with Rome? Well, it's because the Vatican decided to give that idea the cold shoulder...in other words, the very opposite of fast-tracking anything.

[IowaLutheran]

See libs and cons can agree on more than good Chevy Chase movies!!!

Other than Caddyshack, "good Chevy Chase movie" is an oxymoron, isn't it?

[Albion]

Other than Caddyshack, "good Chevy Chase movie" is an oxymoron, isn't it?

I liked Funny Farm and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

[Aymn27]

Other than Caddyshack, "good Chevy Chase movie" is an oxymoron, isn't it?
are you kidding?...I love chevy chase!

[Colabomb]

We'll have the hap hap happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with danny....

Oh wait, I can't finish that.......

[IowaLutheran]

Forgot about National Lampoon's Vacation :doh:

[longhair75]

What if I had my own hypothetical church and, as a hypothetical, said "At my church, we let Jews and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, atheists and agnostic, Wiccans and pagans, and so on and so forth become members and participate in all the sacraments. We are not welcome to become members of their groups and participate in all of their sacraments and rituals. Who is working towards unity rather than requiring submission?". What would you say? Why is your statement and question any more valid than my hypothetical? Isn't the reasoning very similar? In your hypothetical church, you may include anyone you like, but your example is not really very similar to my comment specifically on the split between Rome and Canterbury, which is the topic of this thread. So far, in the discussion of reunification of the Roman and Anglican churches the inclusion non-Christians has yet to be a deciding factor.

[Albion]

We'll have the hap hap happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with danny....

Terrific! :thumbsup:

[Albion]

In your hypothetical church, you may include anyone you like, but your example is not really very similar to my comment specifically on the split between Rome and Canterbury, which is the topic of this thread. So far, in the discussion of reunification of the Roman and Anglican churches the inclusion non-Christians has yet to be a deciding factor.

Well...in TEC this is not hypothetical, is it? I know several self-professed Buddhists, Wiccans (and witches), and Agnostics who are members in good standing of the local Episcopal parish and make no secret of their alternate or additional faith system.

[longhair75]

Well...in TEC this is not hypothetical, is it? I know several self-professed Buddhists, Wiccans (and witches), and Agnostics who are members in good standing of the local Episcopal parish and make no secret of their alternate or additional faith system.
I also know people who pay lip service to Rome while participating in Buddhism and Wicca but, friend Albion, what does this fact contribute to our discussion of Anglican reunification with Rome? Or my point that we, as Anglicans are not welcome at Roman Communion while we do extend our invitation to our Roman brothers and sisters?

[Fish and Bread]

In your hypothetical church, you may include anyone you like, but your example is not really very similar to my comment specifically on the split between Rome and Canterbury, which is the topic of this thread. So far, in the discussion of reunification of the Roman and Anglican churches the inclusion non-Christians has yet to be a deciding factor.

My point is this: The implication that Rome must not be interested in religious unity because it doesn't admit Anglicans (Apart from the Anglican Use of it's church) to the sacrament of holy communion is not necessarily a fair one. It would be similar to if the Unitarian Universalists turned around and said the Episcopal Church wasn't interested in religious unity because it doesn't allow Wiccans to receive the sacrament of holy orders, in some respects. Ecumenicalism generally involves compromise, yes, but if it involves undermining your core faith beliefs, it's probably a bad thing. Ultimately any church or denomination that see ecumenicalism as a game of "How much further can I go to include everyone than everyone else does?" is ultimately going to wind up with a faith that means nothing and stands for nothing -- everything gets washed away except the one virtue of inclusiveness.

I happen to like inclusiveness. I'm a liberal kind of guy. But it'd be a shame to me if Roman Catholics sold out on their core ancient beliefs about the Eucharist, which includes this idea that sacramental confession and unity of faith are required to receive it. It'd also be a shame if the Anglican Communion decides that the Koran is equal to the bible or something one day. Sometimes it's a good thing that people stick to their guns. Compromise can be good, too, but one has to know where to draw the line, not refusing to compromise but also not giving away the farm.

[ChaliceThunder]

See libs and cons can agree on more than good Chevy Chase movies!!!
***thinks of Yellow Dog :)

[ChaliceThunder]

'The other realm of England'? oh, that would be the US. ;) ^_^ :sorry:
So bad! ;)

[ChaliceThunder]

We'll have the hap hap happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with danny....

Oh wait, I can't finish that.......
Nosireee Bob - you'd better not finish that!

(I'm thinking your family and mine have some majorly similar video viewing habits!!!)

[Albion]

I also know people who pay lip service to Rome while participating in Buddhism and Wicca but, friend Albion, what does this fact contribute to our discussion of Anglican reunification with Rome?

It was just an observation given in response to the post that posited a "hypothetical" church in which all this happened. There is no need to hypothesize, is there?

Or my point that we, as Anglicans are not welcome at Roman Communion while we do extend our invitation to our Roman brothers and sisters?

This has already been said, hasn't it? We all know it's so.

[Albion]

My point is this: The implication that Rome must not be interested in religious unity because it doesn't admit Anglicans (Apart from the Anglican Use of it's church) to the sacrament of holy communion is not necessarily a fair one.

That seems a fair observation. The bigger point, though, still may be that unity is always on Rome's terms. That's not a sincere interest in achieving unity, it could easily be argued.

I happen to like inclusiveness. I'm a liberal kind of guy. But it'd be a shame to me if Roman Catholics sold out on their core ancient beliefs about the Eucharist, which includes this idea that sacramental confession and unity of faith are required to receive it.

Except that Rome has altered its stance on many things over the years and never has maintained that absolute unity in all doctrinal matters is necessary for fellowship, etc. (as for example some Lutheran bodies hold to). I don't believe it is accurate that Rome would be selling out its principles--let alone "core beliefs"--to make at least some adjustment in its positions. We have Anglicans willing to give up almost all of Anglicanism because they think unity is so much expected by God of his people while, at the same time, Rome, which has made many changes in its beliefs and practices over the past half-century, apparently is not budging when it comes to unity with these Anglicans.

[Colabomb]

Nosireee Bob - you'd better not finish that!

(I'm thinking your family and mine have some majorly similar video viewing habits!!!)

haha, I'd say so.

I knew I liked you lol! :P

We watch that every Christmas (And several other times throughout the year :P)

"A funny, squeaking sound"

[Colabomb]

Fish, opening the table to all brothers is different than opening it to pagans, muslims and buddhists.

We are one in Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is our unity. We should start to act like one people rather than setting up false divisions as we have been so quick to do.

Rome is Prideful, and she needs to show humility and welcome her brothers to the table. However I don't think this is likely, at least in my lifetime.

That is part of the reason I am so frustrated at Anglican Communion Elitists, and fundie bashers.

[ChaliceThunder]

haha, I'd say so.

I knew I liked you lol! :P

We watch that every Christmas (And several other times throughout the year :P)

"A funny, squeaking sound"
^_^

"Squiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrel!"

[Fish and Bread]

That seems a fair observation. The bigger point, though, still may be that unity is always on Rome's terms. That's not a sincere interest in achieving unity, it could easily be argued.

Except that Rome has altered its stance on many things over the years and never has maintained that absolute unity in all doctrinal matters is necessary for fellowship, etc. (as for example some Lutheran bodies hold to). I don't believe it is accurate that Rome would be selling out its principles--let alone "core beliefs"--to make at least some adjustment in its positions. We have Anglicans willing to give up almost all of Anglicanism because they think unity is so much expected by God of his people while, at the same time, Rome, which has made many changes in its beliefs and practices over the past half-century, apparently is not budging when it comes to unity with these Anglicans.

I do think there are some practical things that the Vatican could do to help along ecumenical talks with Anglicans. Offering a separate rite with a patriarch would certainly be helpful, and budging on disciplinary matters like a married priesthood and so forth for the new rite. However, there is a definite limit to what the Vatican can do in terms of staying true to what it is.

What I don't think folks always realize is that a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism on doctrine is always going to result in something intrinsically Protestant. Catholicism by definition has to involve a continuity of doctrine and the faith handed down. Protestantism generally reserves the right to reinterpret doctrine with each passing generation. As soon as the RCC reverses itself on, say, birth control, as an ecumenical compromise, it ceases to be Catholic and becomes Protestant by it's own definitions, no matter how much prayer to Mary and incense still remains in it's parishes. ;) That's why it can't budge and won't on certain matters.

You say that "Rome, which has made many changes in its beliefs and practices over the past half-century". Certainly, they have made many changes in practices, what they define as discipline -- vernacular masses, fasting rules, and so on and so forth. It is changes along these lines that I advocate the Vatican do more of in their ecumenical talks with Anglicans. Your contention that there are changes in formal belief in the RCC in the last half-century is certainly one that a solid case can be made for (limbo, ecumenicalism), but one has to take into account that the RCC itself believes that it has not changed it's formal doctrines and dogmas. So, one can point to these changes one may think have occurred as precedent, but the RCC is naturally going to reject the use of them as precedent because they don't believe they constituted doctrinal changes.

Anglicans can budge because there is no real defining theological proposition that says that they can't, other than in some Anglo-Catholic circles, perhaps.

Fish, opening the table to all brothers is different than opening it to pagans, muslims and buddhists.

We are one in Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is our unity. We should start to act like one people rather than setting up false divisions as we have been so quick to do.

Rome believes that it is a mortal sin to take communion without confessing ones mortal sins to a priest in advance of it and believing what the Church believes. From their perspective, allowing Anglicans to take communion wouldn't be a nice ecumenical gesture, it would be risking contributing to damning some of them to hell. It would also conceivably be a sin for them to offer it, because it would be misusing the sacrament from their perspective.

My experience has been that Anglicans just don't get the reasoning, for whatever reason. It is like they just mentally overlay a soundtrack of "I'm a jerk, I'm a jerk, I'm a jerk." to whatever explanations Roman Catholics give on why they practice closed communion, they just hear "I'm a jerk." from the Roman Catholic and not the actual explanation.

Rome is Prideful, and she needs to show humility and welcome her brothers to the table.

Rome may be prideful, but I sense a measure of pride in Anglicanism and Protestantism as well in saying "I demand you abandon your cherished beliefs and include me in your sacraments because I deserve it and you're a jerk to stick up for your beliefs and not give me whatever I want.". Basically, Protestants are telling Rome to become Protestant itself. Granted, Rome is always telling Protestants to become Catholic as well.

[Colabomb]

I do think there are some practical things that the Vatican could do to help along ecumenical talks with Anglicans. Offering a separate rite with a patriarch would certainly be helpful, and budging on disciplinary matters like a married priesthood and so forth for the new rite. However, there is a definite limit to what the Vatican can do in terms of staying true to what it is.

What I don't think folks always realize is that a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism on doctrine is always going to result in something intrinsically Protestant. Catholicism by definition has to involve a continuity of doctrine and the faith handed down. Protestantism generally reserves the right to reinterpret doctrine with each passing generation. As soon as the RCC reverses itself on, say, birth control, as an ecumenical compromise, it ceases to be Catholic and becomes Protestant by it's own definitions, no matter how much prayer to Mary and incense still remains in it's parishes. ;) That's why it can't budge and won't on certain matters.

You say that "Rome, which has made many changes in its beliefs and practices over the past half-century". Certainly, they have made many changes in practices, what they define as discipline -- vernacular masses, fasting rules, and so on and so forth. It is changes along these lines that I advocate the Vatican do more of in their ecumenical talks with Anglicans. Your contention that there are changes in formal belief in the RCC in the last half-century is certainly one that a solid case can be made for (limbo, ecumenicalism), but one has to take into account that the RCC itself believes that it has not changed it's formal doctrines and dogmas. So, one can point to these changes one may think have occurred as precedent, but the RCC is naturally going to reject the use of them as precedent because they don't believe they constituted doctrinal changes.

Anglicans can budge because there is no real defining theological proposition that says that they can't, other than in some Anglo-Catholic circles, perhaps.



Rome believes that it is a mortal sin to take communion without confessing ones mortal sins to a priest in advance of it and believing what the Church believes. From their perspective, allowing Anglicans to take communion wouldn't be a nice ecumenical gesture, it would be risking contributing to damning some of them to hell. It would also conceivably be a sin for them to offer it, because it would be misusing the sacrament from their perspective.

My experience has been that Anglicans just don't get the reasoning, for whatever reason. It is like they just mentally overlay a soundtrack of "I'm a jerk, I'm a jerk, I'm a jerk." to whatever explanations Roman Catholics give on why they practice closed communion, they just hear "I'm a jerk." from the Roman Catholic and not the actual explanation.



Rome may be prideful, but I sense a measure of pride in Anglicanism and Protestantism as well in saying "I demand you abandon your cherished beliefs and include me in your sacraments because I deserve it and you're a jerk to stick up for your beliefs and not give me whatever I want.". Basically, Protestants are telling Rome to become Protestant itself. Granted, Rome is always telling Protestants to become Catholic as well.

I admit you've got a good point there.

And I do understand Rome's position on the sacrament. But I read Paul where he tells the communicant to come with a prepared heart, I don't see Paul telling the local Bishop/elder to make that decision for them.

[Albion]

What I don't think folks always realize is that a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism on doctrine is always going to result in something intrinsically Protestant. Catholicism by definition has to involve a continuity of doctrine and the faith handed down. Protestantism generally reserves the right to reinterpret doctrine with each passing generation. As soon as the RCC reverses itself on, say, birth control, as an ecumenical compromise, it ceases to be Catholic and becomes Protestant by it's own definitions, no matter how much prayer to Mary and incense still remains in it's parishes. ;) That's why it can't budge and won't on certain matters.

FWIW, I can't buy that as accurate. To me, it relects an acceptance of Roman Catholic claims rather than the facts of Church history.

You say that "Rome, which has made many changes in its beliefs and practices over the past half-century". Certainly, they have made many changes in practices, what they define as discipline -- vernacular masses, fasting rules, and so on and so forth. It is changes along these lines that I advocate the Vatican do more of in their ecumenical talks with Anglicans. Your contention that there are changes in formal belief in the RCC in the last half-century is certainly one that a solid case can be made for (limbo, ecumenicalism), but one has to take into account that the RCC itself believes that it has not changed it's formal doctrines and dogmas.

All right. There I do agree with you.

By her claims to infallibility, to never changing her beliefs, and so on, she has perhaps painted herself into a corner from which she is powerless to escape. Still, I feel that she could do enough of it to cover her duplicity. For example, in discussions with the Lutherans awhile ago, she conceded that Transubstantiation was just an emphatic way of saying Real Presence. We all know that this is not the case, but OK. If that is possible, more is possible IMO.

Anglicans can budge because there is no real defining theological proposition that says that they can't, other than in some Anglo-Catholic circles, perhaps.

Could be. But there's been no hesitancy in some quarters to discard as unimportant the one theological position statement that held the church and all factions of it together for nearly 500 years.

Rome believes that it is a mortal sin to take communion without confessing ones mortal sins to a priest in advance of it and believing what the Church believes.

But it no longer actually takes that longstanding position. It is now acceptable, and routine, to confess occasionally, whereas it was always the case that you had to confess before every Sunday Mass. Hardly any American Catholic now does that.

From their perspective, allowing Anglicans to take communion wouldn't be a nice ecumenical gesture, it would be risking contributing to damning some of them to hell.

Again, I can't buy that. Not long ago it was a sin merely to attend a non-Catholic worship service. I really do think that you are unaware of how much the Church has actually changed; it is not just since Vatican II and it is not totally in lesser matters like allowing altar girls. Abortion was not always condemned, did you know? The age of quickening was the standard for an earlier time.

My experience has been that Anglicans just don't get the reasoning, for whatever reason.

Oh, I think they do.

Rome may be prideful, but I sense a measure of pride in Anglicanism and Protestantism as well in saying "I demand you abandon your cherished beliefs and include me in your sacraments because I deserve it and you're a jerk to stick up for your beliefs and not give me whatever I want.". Basically, Protestants are telling Rome to become Protestant itself. Granted, Rome is always telling Protestants to become Catholic as well.

[Diane_Windsor]

From an outsider's perspective

Do you want to be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ? Well, then Anglicanism is for you. They even have active Bishops who do not believe in the Nicene Creed.

I agree with you. I see the Episcopal Church (and Anglicanism as a whole) not having any definitive dogma whatsoever.

[Diane_Windsor]

They even have Anglicans who believe the Pope is infallible.

Then why aren't these Anglicans Roman Catholic? :scratch:

[Colabomb]

From an outsider's perspective



I agree with you. I see the Episcopal Church (and Anglicanism as a whole) not having any definitive dogma whatsoever.


That however is not how Anglicanism was traditionally understood. This is very modern.

It used to be that there was diversity WITHIN the confines of the Gospel. Modern anglicans forget the Gospel part for the most part and concentrate soley on diversity.

[Albion]

I agree with you. I see the Episcopal Church (and Anglicanism as a whole) not having any definitive dogma whatsoever.


That however is not how Anglicanism was traditionally understood. This is very modern.

It used to be that there was diversity WITHIN the confines of the Gospel. Modern anglicans forget the Gospel part for the most part and concentrate soley on diversity.

Quite right, Cola. And the post to which you were responding was incorrect in saying, in parenthesis, "and Anglicanism as a whole", since Anglicanism as a whole has NOT lost its bearings, just segments of it and a minority at that. Almost every church has its dissidents, not just Anglicanism.

There is a every possitility of worldwide Anglicanism reasserting its historic faith. If that does not happen, THEN it can be said that Anglicanism stands for nothing, but not yet.

[Secundulus]

Then why aren't these Anglicans Roman Catholic? :scratch:

See this thread http://foru.ms/t6283912-traditional-anglican-communion-seeks-full-union-with-rome.html

[Diane_Windsor]

And the post to which you were responding was incorrect in saying, in parenthesis, "and Anglicanism as a whole", since Anglicanism as a whole has NOT lost its bearings, just segments of it and a minority at that. Almost every church has its dissidents, not just Anglicanism.

In your opinion :)

[karen freeinchristman]

From an outsider's perspective

I agree with you. I see the Episcopal Church (and Anglicanism as a whole) not having any definitive dogma whatsoever.

In your opinion :)

Hello, Diane! :wave: May I take this opportunity to remind you, as a moderator of this forum, that especially in threads like this one that can easily become heated and contentious, that you need to hold back from debate which includes giving your opinion on Anglicanism. That is one of our forum-specific rules, and I would appreciate it if you would abide by that. This is just a friendly reminder. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Then why aren't these Anglicans Roman Catholic? :scratch:
Well, this is not true, of course.
There are many Anglicans who want to see the church work towards reunion, and see a traditional place for primacy. Then reactionary folks flip out about Papacy. Then you have to explain primacy is not the same as Papacy. A few days later we go through the same discussion about Papacy and Primacy.

[gtsecc]

Diane made a great point - we should not lose her point and write it off as a forum violation.

[Polycarp1]

You need to understand, Diane, that traditional Anglicism (and I believe this is true viewed from either side of the current divide; I seek correction if I'm wrong) has historically declined to write formularies that attempt to encapsulate believes in verbal dogmatic statements. Rather, our beliefs are shown forth in how we worship, how we minister, what we DO as the church. We're orthopraxic rather than orthodoxic.

And that is sometimes a hard concept to grasp for people who have multi-page dogmatic constitutions or catechetical documents that narrowly define every detail of a systematic doctrinal theology.

[karen freeinchristman]

Diane made a great point - we should not lose her point and write it off as a forum violation.
Just to clarify - her posts have not been written off as forum violations. Her post (and hence, her point) remain.

[higgs2]

You need to understand, Diane, that traditional Anglicism (and I believe this is true viewed from either side of the current divide; I seek correction if I'm wrong) has historically declined to write formularies that attempt to encapsulate believes in verbal dogmatic statements. Rather, our beliefs are shown forth in how we worship, how we minister, what we DO as the church. We're orthopraxic rather than orthodoxic.

And that is sometimes a hard concept to grasp for people who have multi-page dogmatic constitutions or catechetical documents that narrowly define every detail of a systematic doctrinal theology.

Exactly. Well stated, Poly.

[gtsecc]

Well, don't we define certain things?
I don't think we can say that Anglicans don't follow the Creed because historically we don't believe in verbal dogmatic standards?

[Colabomb]

Anglicanism has always Taught and followed the Gospel of Jesus Christ as understood in the Creeds.

Its only in this modern anything goes type era that we question the Great Truths of Christianity.

[higgs2]

Like the Enlightenment.

[gtsecc]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the teachings of Christianity.
Teaching something different, for example, that Mohamed is His Profet, and calling it Christianity is something wrong.

[longhair75]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the teachings of Christianity.
Teaching something different, for example, that Mohamed is His Profet, and calling it Christianity is something wrong.
With the exception of Dr. Redding, I have yet to see a widespread proclamation of Mohammed as His Prophet from the Episcopal Church. Dr Redding was removed from active ministry for her aberration of reconciling acceptance of Islam with Christianity.

[ChaliceThunder]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the teachings of Christianity.
Teaching something different, for example, that Mohamed is His Profet, and calling it Christianity is something wrong.
She did not TEACH that.

Please do get your facts straight before making such a statement.

And actually, she was not "removed." She and her bishop came to an agreement to pause for a year and reflect on her ministry.

Why must we make everything so dang sensational?

[Colabomb]

When i mean "question" I didn't mean searching. I have had my own moments of doubt as everyone else does.

When i say "question" I mean denying the basic Teachings of the Faith, and calling it something its not.

[No Swansong]

She did not TEACH that.

Please do get your facts straight before making such a statement.

And actually, she was not "removed." She and her bishop came to an agreement to pause for a year and reflect on her ministry.

Why must we make everything so dang sensational?
Chalice my friend it seems you know Rev Redding (not really sure what to call her) What then did she teach when she said that Islam allowed her to remove Jesus from between her and God? It seems to me that this is not only a denial of Jesus as God (Trinity) but also a denial that Jesus is the only sufficient sacrifice.

If you have anything that can shed light on this issue I would appreciate it. I admit my conclusions are speculation but she hasn't really as far as I have been able to find refuted them, or anything that would lead me to think she meant something else.

I have another question for you, I know that her Bishop has stated that she will not be performing any priestly duties but is she still teaching Theology?

[higgs2]

Seems like questioning would come before denying.

[Colabomb]

She did not TEACH that.

Please do get your facts straight before making such a statement.

And actually, she was not "removed." She and her bishop came to an agreement to pause for a year and reflect on her ministry.

Why must we make everything so dang sensational?

She is a priest. Everything she does is teaching. Whether or not she was in a pulpit, what she said is teaching.

[ChaliceThunder]

Chalice my friend it seems you know Rev Redding (not really sure what to call her) What then did she teach when she said that Islam allowed her to remove Jesus from between her and God? It seems to me that this is not only a denial of Jesus as God (Trinity) but also a denial that Jesus is the only sufficient sacrifice.

If you have anything that can shed light on this issue I would appreciate it. I admit my conclusions are speculation but she hasn't really as far as I have been able to find refuted them, or anything that would lead me to think she meant something else.

I have another question for you, I know that her Bishop has stated that she will not be performing any priestly duties but is she still teaching Theology?
I call her Ann.

Her statements were part of a newspaper article. She was offering her opinions. She was not teaching - even though she is a priest - a newspaper article in which one offers their own viewpoint about a personal journey is not to be thought of as Church Teaching. (This is partially directed to Cola as well. :wave:)

And in answer to your question, she is not at this time doing any teaching or preaching in the church.

[Phinehas2]

I dont really accept the appreant denials that Dr Redding's case is somehow so isolated. According to reports she heard a talk in 2005 from a local Muslim leader at a cathedral, who also prayed before those attending. Also at an interfaith class in the church of St. Mark's another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer. So it is likely to be widespread.
Now of course we have much in common with Muslims, especially in many lifestyle values, but we have nothing in common with Islam. If a priest gets Islam at church, how many others. Couple that with some of the multifaith idolatory that seems to be underlying some of Katherine Jefferts-Schori's comments and I think we have a serious problem.
:)

[ContraMundum]

Good point Phineas.

[Aymn27]

She is a priest. Everything she does is teaching. Whether or not she was in a pulpit, what she said is teaching.
Amen! ...and I believe we should still burn heretics at the stake! viva la inquisition!!!:P

[Secundulus]

Amen! ...and I believe we should still burn heretics at the stake! viva la inquisition!!!:P

Excommunication would send a strong message if those in authority actually disagreed.

[Colabomb]

Her statements were part of a newspaper article. She was offering her opinions. She was not teaching - even though she is a priest - a newspaper article in which one offers their own viewpoint about a personal journey is not to be thought of as Church Teaching. (This is partially directed to Cola as well. :wave:)

And in answer to your question, she is not at this time doing any teaching or preaching in the church.

Chalice I disagree. She is a Priest, her LIFE is given to this ministry. She cannot be a priest one moment, and a private person the next. EVERYTHING she says is teaching. EVERYTHING she says reflects on the Church. If she does not want that responsibility she should step down from the office. But as long as she carries that title, that role, she is teaching, constantly.

Did you ever wonder why the biblical standard for bishops is described as "Above reproach"?

[ChaliceThunder]

Chalice I disagree. She is a Priest, her LIFE is given to this ministry. She cannot be a priest one moment, and a private person the next. EVERYTHING she says is teaching. EVERYTHING she says reflects on the Church. If she does not want that responsibility she should step down from the office. But as long as she carries that title, that role, she is teaching, constantly.

Did you ever wonder why the biblical standard for bishops is described as "Above reproach"?
We see it differently, Cola. I accept that.

[Phinehas2]

Dear ChaliceThunder,
We see it differently, Cola. I accept that. Its not who we disagree with its what we disagree with, we could say we see it differently to a Muslim.

[No Swansong]

Chalice my friend I have to agree with Cola on this one. Everything she says and does is a reflection upon the Church as long as she is one if its' priests.

However my question was more referring to her teaching position. Does she still teach Theology at (I forget what Seminary) as an Episcopal priest?

[ChaliceThunder]

Chalice my friend I have to agree with Cola on this one. Everything she says and does is a reflection upon the Church as long as she is one if its' priests.

However my question was more referring to her teaching position. Does she still teach Theology at (I forget what Seminary) as an Episcopal priest?
My brother, the clergy are far from perfect. (perhaps you already know this ... I sure do! ^_^) I don't think her personal article was in any way teaching on behalf of the church. It was a human interest story one person's journey of faith ... a person who happens to be ordained.

If she were preaching this from the pulpit, writing books about it, or teaching it in a class, I would definitely agree with you. But in this instance, I strongly disagree.

Taking on the collar is not akin to giving up one's frail humanity. (Perhaps we would ALL be in a lot less trouble right now if we stopped elevating the clergy to demi-god status ;)) We set them on a pedestal and knock them off every chance we get. What kind of Christianity is that??? (I include myself among the guilty)

Yes, she teaches NT at a local university...not as an Episcopal priest, as I understand it, but as a Doctor of Theology.

[Colabomb]

My brother, the clergy are far from perfect. (perhaps you already know this ... I sure do! ^_^) I don't think her personal article was in any way teaching on behalf of the church. It was a human interest story one person's journey of faith ... a person who happens to be ordained.

If she were preaching this from the pulpit, writing books about it, or teaching it in a class, I would definitely agree with you. But in this instance, I strongly disagree.

Taking on the collar is not akin to giving up one's frail humanity. (Perhaps we would ALL be in a lot less trouble right now if we stopped elevating the clergy to demi-god status ;)) We set them on a pedestal and knock them off every chance we get. What kind of Christianity is that??? (I include myself among the guilty)

Yes, she teaches NT at a local university...not as an Episcopal priest, as I understand it, but as a Doctor of Theology.

Brother, the difference between you and I, is that I see the ordination the same way I see a marriage. She is always a priest, at all times. She can never (figuratively) put down that collar. She gives up all of herself up to that ministry. That is how it always has, and always should be.

But, we can respectfully disagree my brother, we have done it in the past :)

(Dad wanted me to add by the way, that he thought she was training priests, as a priest, not a professional. He cannot argue with her practicing her profession)

[ChaliceThunder]

Brother, the difference between you and I, is that I see the ordination the same way I see a marriage. She is always a priest, at all times. She can never (figuratively) put down that collar. She gives up all of herself up to that ministry. That is how it always has, and always should be.

But, we can respectfully disagree my brother, we have done it in the past :)

(Dad wanted me to add by the way, that he thought she was training priests, as a priest, not a professional. He cannot argue with her practicing her profession)
Hi Cola,
I know that one never puts down the collar. I am willing to believe that you see everything she does as "teaching."

That actually teaches me a lot about what a portion of the church thinks about the priesthood - and since I am a postulant, it is good to know the wide variety of opions...so thank you! :wave:

[karen freeinchristman]

Hi Cola,
I know that one never puts down the collar. I am willing to believe that you see everything she does as "teaching."

That actually teaches me a lot about what a portion of the church thinks about the priesthood - and since I am a postulant, it is good to know the wide variety of opions...so thank you! :wave:
The way I see it, in a 24/7 context, priests 'teach' by example. Yes, priests are human, but there is no getting around the fact that it is a vocation, a way of being, and not just doing. So the example that is given to others is given 24/7.

[Secundulus]

The way I see it, in a 24/7 context, priests 'teach' by example. Yes, priests are human, but there is no getting around the fact that it is a vocation, a way of being, and not just doing. So the example that is given to others is given 24/7.

My Priest said a few months ago that once you become ordained you give up the right to express personal theological opinion. It is your DUTY to teach what the Church teaches.

[ChaliceThunder]

The way I see it, in a 24/7 context, priests 'teach' by example. Yes, priests are human, but there is no getting around the fact that it is a vocation, a way of being, and not just doing. So the example that is given to others is given 24/7.
I don't disagree.

Who of us has not had deep questions of faith?

Should a priest not be able to express a deepening journey without some people calling for her to be burnt at the stake?

[ChaliceThunder]

My Priest said a few months ago that once you become ordained you give up the right to express personal theological opinion. It is your DUTY to teach what the Church teaches.
I'm sorry, but I think that your priest, while well-meaning, wouldn't be able to back up what he/she is saying.

If we, as Anglicans, believed that, we would still be with Rome.

What the Church has taught over the centuries has grown and changed.

[Secundulus]

I realize that I may be the only one here using the 1928 BCP, but this is what it says about the ordination of Priests. A Priest takes an oath before God to teach what the Church teaches without personal opinion. Those who cannot in good concience do this should question their calling before they take this oath.

Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
Bishop. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.

[Colabomb]

I don't disagree.

Who of us has not had deep questions of faith?

Should a priest not be able to express a deepening journey without some people calling for her to be burnt at the stake?

Um, i think burning at the stake is pretty extreme. (Yes I know you were joking)

Of course we have deep questions of faith. I struggle at times even now with atheistic thoughts now and then.

If she is struggling with her faith, she should go to her bishop for guidance. She should not be proclaiming blasphemy openly (yes Islam is blasphemy).

She did not ask questions in that interview, she gave answers. She was confident. She was determined. She was not saying "I'm having trouble" she said "I am a muslim and a Christian, this is a wonderful thing".

[ChaliceThunder]

Um, i think burning at the stake is pretty extreme. (Yes I know you were joking)

Of course we have deep questions of faith. I struggle at times even now with atheistic thoughts now and then.

If she is struggling with her faith, she should go to her bishop for guidance. She should not be proclaiming blasphemy openly (yes Islam is blasphemy).

She did not ask questions in that interview, she gave answers. She was confident. She was determined. She was not saying "I'm having trouble" she said "I am a muslim and a Christian, this is a wonderful thing".

Only when people called her on it, did this turn into "questioning" and "crisis of faith".
Cola, I know you see this in one way...and that it is impossible to have closer information on the issue. But your last sentence is erroneous and accusatory, not worthy of a young man of God speaking about a woman of God.

As to the burning at the stake remark, I refer you to post #81 in this thread...and a number of others that raged around here when the story first broke.

[Colabomb]

Hmm, perhaps you are right, I will edit the last sentence out.

But the basic point remains, She was not iffy in the article, she was absolute.

[ChaliceThunder]

Hmm, perhaps you are right, I will edit the last sentence out.

But the basic point remains, She was not iffy in the article, she was absolute.
Actually, no. She is no absolutist...by any stretch of the term. I realize that you don't have reference to know this, so I guess I can see how you might make that statement regarding the article. Don't forget that articles such as the one to which you refer are rarely verbatim. It is a reporting seen through the lens of Janet Tu.

However, I appreciate your editing out the last sentence.

[Aymn27]

.

[higgs2]

Oh my...a bit of emotional rancor - no?

I find it simply amazing that you know this woman, and that you were at the HOB meeting in NO - involved enough to be able to make a judgment call on ++ Anis, and that you know VGR and his partner well enough to call him "mark" - I believe is what you said his name was...you must really be on the "inside" of the TEC elite..

Perhaps you could (and maybe PV could help elaborate on this) explain how it is that you are a "postulant" for holy orders and at the same time in a "committed" same-sex relationship - yet you and PV are saying that the HOB and TEC are in compliance with Windsor and DES - however your very own situation shows that to be false...
I don't see any emotional rancor :confused:

My bishop knows VGR and his partner by name. Like them too. Doesn't approve and would not have voted for consecration if he would have been eligible at the time. And is designated to be a visiting bishop if that program were ever accepted. but that does not mean he hates vgr and calles them mean names and uses lots of quotation marks when referring to their relationship.

It's called "the real world". Spouses sing in the spouse choir too, I think.

[Phinehas2]

Dear ChaliceThunder,
My brother, the clergy are far from perfect. (perhaps you already know this ... I sure do! ) I don't think her personal article was in any way teaching on behalf of the church. It was a human interest story one person's journey of faith ... a person who happens to be ordained. I don’t think someone can be a Muslim one minute and a Christian another regardless of whether one is in some sort of official capacity. To be a Christian surely one is a Christian 24/7.
If she were preaching this from the pulpit, writing books about it, or teaching it in a class, I would definitely agree with you. But in this instance, I strongly disagree. I disagree with you 100% Jesus is the truth the way and the life, all the time and wherever we are and whatever we say
Taking on the collar is not akin to giving up one's frail humanity. (Perhaps we would ALL be in a lot less trouble right now if we stopped elevating the clergy to demi-god status ) We set them on a pedestal and knock them off every chance we get. What kind of Christianity is that??? (I include myself among the guilty) What kind of Christianity is it if our leaders are Muslims rather than Christians?
Doctors of theology aren’t all necessarily Christians
If we, as Anglicans, believed that We as Anglicans know she has been removed from her duties because we know its unacceptable.