Church of England Proposes Celebrating Gay Marriage

[ebia]

I am sorry, I did not mean to sound rude my questions about the Episcopalians were honest questions, I was not sure if they were still counted as part of the Anglican Communion and I had heard contradictory things about Episcopalian blessing of homosexual blessings, I did not know if it was official teaching of that denomination or just a common practice

Yes they are still part of the communion - there is no mechanism for removing a member church from the communion.
As to what stage the latter is at officially - I'm not sure. Despite what many Americans seem to think the rest of the Anglican world doesn't pay that close attention to ECUSA.

 

[ebia]

Not much different. One is just a little ahead of the secular humanist curve than the other and leads the way

I would not regard it as appropriate for me as a guest to use the Catholic safe space to attack the Orthodox churches.
I suggest you consider whether it is really appropriate for you to do the reverse.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm not attacking anyone, just stating the facts. Is it not true that the ideas of gay "marriage" and the LGBT agenda as well as the pro-choice and other stuff you see in the Episcopal Church are secular humanist ideas? How is it an attack? Gene Robinson's ordination as a bishop, would you call that conventional and something that the Anglican Church of old would have tolerated? I would guess, seeing as you're a VERY bright chap ebia, that you would be honest enough to say NO. So where am I wrong? The ideas we see in the world right now that are hip and cool, the secular humanist agenda of the women's movement and the gay movements are being realized as good and wholesome in the Anglican groups of the Episcopal Church and now the CofE. I said one is faster to the secular humanist finish line than the other. Where am I wrong, brother? the Church of England took quite a while to come to the women bishops and gay clergy and gay blessings of 'marriages' stuff whereas the Episcopalians came to the conclusions that these were awesome things long ago. Where am I wrong? How is it an attack? Just stating the obvious, ebia. I watched these events unfold at a rapid rate as an Anglican in the Episcopal church and then ACNA for almost a decade and I watched them move at a snail's pace in the CofE. I'm sorry if these facts trouble you, but they're just the facts, as they say on Dragnet!

We're not discussing the Orthodox Church. I'm fairly sure the thread title is related to the Anglicans, no? There HAVE BEEN Orthodox threads in here before where people say my Church is in the wrong and that we're defective due to our lack of the papacy. Of course I disagree wholeheartedly with that, but I respect the Catholics' right to believe that as it is their subforum! They can assert the things I disagree with and I must be respectful. Nothing I've said is an attack, but rather what I have said is indeed in line with Catholic thinking, so I AM being respectful to this subforum. show me where the Episcopalian ideas of women priestesses, gay "marriage" being 'blessed,' and LGBT issues and abortion being acceptable behavior is in line with Catholic teachings and I'll agree with you that I'm in the wrong here.

I would not regard it as appropriate for me as a guest to use the Catholic safe space to attack the Orthodox churches.
I suggest you consider whether it is really appropriate for you to do the reverse.

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

What a difference a year makes. Or maybe its pressure threats from wealthy homosexuals and law suits?

Gay Marriage 'To Be Banned In Church of England Churches' - YouTube


Gay couple to sue church over gay marriage opt out. Thu, 1 Aug 2013 -COTRP - YouTube

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And nothing to the contrary to prove I'm wrong.

Simply not born out by the facts.

 

[ebia]

I'm not attacking anyone, just stating the facts.

Yeh, right, You know full well what you are doing - attacking one church in a forum where that church cannot be properly defended without breaking the rules.

Quite frankly, that ought to be beneath you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wait, so let's back up....the Episcopal Church never adopted blessings for homosexual "marriages" and never said it's ok to ordain actively-homosexual men and women? They haven't spoken out positively about abortion and cohabitation and other sins? You're saying that's all false? And you're telling me those are not secular values they're adopting? Ebia, nice try. The false outrage of the extreme left wing of these groups isn't enough to overcome the facts. I'll break it down to Cliff's Notes Reader's Digest:

Episcopal Church is pro- gay "marriage" SOCIETY--pro gay "marriage"
Episcopal Church is pro women's "ordination" SOCIETY--pro W.O.
Episcopal Church is pro-choice SOCIETY--pro-choice predominantly

We could keep going on, right? How am I 'smearing' a group of people? These are their official stances, so I'm a little foggy where I'm dragging the good name of the Episcopal Church through the mud, mate.

I never said anyone is evil, going to hell, nor did I attack anyone. You're setting up a strawman here with outrage over ghosts.

I'm not breaking rules. I gave clear facts about these churches. The Church of England has been behind the secular humanist moves of the Episcopal Church, but they're catching up. Show me where I'm wrong? Each moral change has occurred first in the TEC then the CofE has just taken longer to follow suit. If you interpret that as a hurtful attack, man, I don't know what to tell ya. Every moral stance I've mentioned that the CofE and TEC have taken are contrary to Catholic and Orthodox teachings, so I have done nothing wrong. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt.

Yeh, right, You know full well what you are doing - attacking one church in a forum where that church cannot be properly defended without breaking the rules.

Quite frankly, that ought to be beneath you.

 

[ebia]

I'm not breaking rules.

Maybe, maybe not. But a robust and serious response probably would be. That's the issue.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The quote isn't far off, but it's suggestion in the context of an extensive discussion document. It's not CofE policy; its explicitly a paper to facilitate discussion. You wouldn't want the Catholic Church dismissed because of one paragraph taken out of context from a paper by an obscure committee with no particular authority.

As i said misquotes can happen...
However; without a leader [such as a Pope] who gives final authority - and maintains teachings since the beginning - sometimes those without this hierarchy - fall.

The thing is - we have a 'set of rules' since the beginning and even the Pope [which wouldnt happen] doesnt stray from it.
The CC has been here from the start.

Unfortunately for others who left her - they dont have that promise. Because the keys remain where they remain.

The tfact is - they could change - they could follow the others into error because they dont have the origin of truth when they left the Chair.

They were a Bishoprick - not a successor to a Patriarch which makes it even harder for them.

It just wouldnt surprise me if they followed the world.
This is why many came to the CC before.
And many more will follow....when and if they decide to drop the ball.

That communion is strained precisely because of ECUSA's actions.


I could find you a committee within the RCC that is talking about it. A committee talking about it means nothing - particularly in a church that believes in open discussion.

But what has remained from the last 'exodus - are those more progressive anyway.
I wouldnt make any bets prematurely that they wont continue to allow errors.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yeh, right, You know full well what you are doing - attacking one church in a forum where that church cannot be properly defended without breaking the rules.

Quite frankly, that ought to be beneath you.

And you are defending them - tho they arent Catholic. So - um - well this is OBOB.
We arent discussing anything that hasnt been reported as a big possibility.
Defending them is kind of against the rules as well....
Since we are Catholic and dont believe they have communion with our Church in the 1st place.

So - well, you understand.

 

[WarriorAngel]

What a difference a year makes. Or maybe its pressure threats from wealthy homosexuals and law suits?

Gay Marriage 'To Be Banned In Church of England Churches' - YouTube


Gay couple to sue church over gay marriage opt out. Thu, 1 Aug 2013 -COTRP - YouTube

OY!

Well then - i see a quick slipping...
And of course - i worry about our own country.

To all the wheat who understand the evil - look up and ...

'Come out of her, My people..'

 

[WisdomTree]

That is my feeling as well. I'm hoping more people will go Orthodox over Anglican. But though I'm not Catholic anymore, I would prefer a person convert to Catholicism any day than stay Anglican! And I don't say this because I detest Anglicans. There are a TON of lovely people in the Anglican communion to be sure, but theologically speaking they've been going off a cliff for decades. In the past twenty years morally speaking they've pushed the envelope with gay "marriage," women "priests," church polity, abortion, and a host of other things.

I do not think that Anglicans are horrible people or that their is nothing of value in their community
I just agree with you about all the problematic moral issues that you pointed out, and there are also a ton of theological issues that can be seen as harmful

even though I have never been Eastern Orthodox, I am encouraged to see former Anglicans becoming Eastern Orthodox
even though you can probably guess my personal preference

The late Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria would disagree with you there Gurney, he said that it was a tragedy for someone to leave one mistake only to go into another, or something along those lines.

For me personally, I think it's tragic that this is happening. I would much prefer a complete reconciliation of the Church of England (and the rest of the Isle for that matter) with their Apostolic Succession restored to the way things were prior to the Anglican schism, rather than mass conversion.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I admit I don't quite understand the dynamics of the CofE. So bear with me.

But, as the church head is, officially, the Queen of England and she gave assent to the passage of SSM in England (back in July)...is it really a surprise the CofE would eventually see a push to accept it as well?

I also don't worry about out nation having the same issue. Our very directive in reference to religion is that marriage is not under authority of anyone but the clergy of the church in question. Don't want to marry a couple? Then don't. For any reason - which does not have to be given. No questions asked [well some may be asked but you don't have to answer...you know what I mean].

Sure, it could have societal/communal repercussions, but all decisions made have such.

I think the dynamic is a bit different for the CofE, since it is, still, in essence, a state church. Under the thumb of the English throne.

Frankly, I am surprised this wasn't an issue already.

 

[Rhamiel]

I think the monarch is not the head of the Church but the "defender of the faith"

Henery VIII claimed to be the head of the Church in England, but with Elisabeth I, a lot of Englishmen were kind of worried about having a woman as the head of the Church
so it was kind of a compromise
I am not sure anymore

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well Pope Shehouda was Coptic and I'm not Coptic, so I won't go with that line of thinking! LOL....Of course I prefaced things that I personally believe Holy Orthodoxy is the true Ancient Faith of the Fathers and the saints and from my perspective I would prefer anyone to convert to Holy Orthodoxy. Some of my fellow Orthodox brethren would disagree with me, but my own priest says the same thing. "Better Catholic than Anglican!" he has said to me before. Like I said, I would prefer Orthodoxy any day of the week to ANY OTHER denomination, including Catholicism, but I deeply respect the Catholic Church in many ways and I personally opine that they have valid orders and sacraments. I also appreciate their polity and traditions and priesthood. I think it is infinitely a better option. What the Coptic patriarchs say? Heck, not part of my makeup!

If all of England converted to Orthodoxy, I wouldn't lodge a formal protest!

The late Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria would disagree with you there Gurney, he said that it was a tragedy for someone to leave one mistake only to go into another, or something along those lines.

For me personally, I think it's tragic that this is happening. I would much prefer a complete reconciliation of the Church of England (and the rest of the Isle for that matter) with their Apostolic Succession restored to the way things were prior to the Anglican schism, rather than mass conversion.

 

[ebia]

And you are defending them - tho they arent Catholic.

No, I'm just setting a few factual errors straight. I presume there is enough care about truth here to want that. I'm trying very hard not to go beyond that into promoting the CofE in any sense or promoting any teaching contrary to the RCC.

If an OBOB member wishes to criticize the CofE in a way that can't be properly responded to that's their prerogative, but I don't think guests ought to act in that manner toward other denominations.

 

[ebia]

I admit I don't quite understand the dynamics of the CofE. So bear with me. But, as the church head is, officially, the Queen of England and she gave assent to the passage of SSM in England (back in July)...

She doesn't have any choice. Nor does she carry much influence in the CofE.

 

[ebia]

As i said misquotes can happen... However; without a leader [such as a Pope] who gives final authority - and maintains teachings since the beginning - sometimes those without this hierarchy - fall.

Not having a top-down authority has its difficulties, yes.

But what has remained from the last 'exodus - are those more progressive anyway.

Eh? There hasn't been an exodus. (And there are reasons why FiF are known as fundies in frocks).
The large conservative element in the CofE is evangelical - especially on this issue.

I wouldnt make any bets prematurely that they wont continue to allow errors.

Maybe, maybe not. But "might one day" is not the same as "will" or "has".

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is no criticism, that's the problem, ebia. It's just a fact. There is nothing to be responded to when something is fact. If I say the Church of England is embracing secular values by allowing women priestesses and bishops and blessing gay relationships, it's pretty hard to argue those aren't secular values. And why is a guest not allowed to mention these things? As long as I'm not just blasting the church and I'm not violating Catholic rules or Catholic morals or Catholic beliefs here, I'm not doing anything wrong. And you know that. Again, sorry it hurts your feelings, but I think you know full well what secular humanism is. You're very bright. And you also know that the Episcopal Church has embraced secular values. It's just plain as the nose on your face, mate. There's no insult.

No, I'm just setting a few factual errors straight. I presume there is enough care about truth here to want that. I'm trying very hard not to go beyond that into promoting the CofE in any sense or promoting any teaching contrary to the RCC.

If an OBOB member wishes to criticize the CofE in a way that can't be properly responded to that's their prerogative, but I don't think guests ought to act in that manner toward other denominations.

 

[ebia]

There is no criticism, that's the problem, ebia. It's just a fact. There is nothing to be responded to when something is fact. If I say the Church of England is embracing secular values by [...] blessing gay relationships,

It hasn't done that.

As to the other, open discussion is not permitted.