ecusa response to christianity today

[Bingley]

Am I the only one who's feeling slightly mystified by the turns and twists of this thread?

I read the Melnyks' ritual when it was still available and do feel uneasy about it being described as a eucharist, but its merits or demerits would seem to be a different issue from CT's coverage. Also, I fail to see the connection between the ritual, CT's coverage thereof, and a possible ritual for divorcing partners, which I haven't seen or read. Could we keep these issues clearly differentiated, or even in different threads?

Attention: fellow Anglicans -- it is no longer possible to be a person who lives out the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church, and consider oneself an Anglican Christian, on this forum.

Why not?

Could I suggest a moratorium on the use of this icon: ? Whatever the writer's intent, it seems to express scorn for those who disagree, rather than bafflement.

 

[ahab]

Hi Bingley,

Am I the only one who's feeling slightly mystified by the turns and twists of this thread?

There is no doubt that a fresh crisis has broken out in the Anglican Communion over this. The West Indian Primate, Archbishop Drexel Gomez has reportedly said that this proposed liturgy showed a “total disregard” “for the bonds of Communion.” And that the issue would be raised at the next meeting of the Primates. So it doesn’t look as though the issue is over and solved as claimed. The reporting has not only involved the 'women's eucharist' but also the 'divorce liturgy' Both have been discussed, attacked and defended, but personal comments have been included as a resonse to some of the attitudes towards these liturgies.

Therefore I would suggest that our debate on the ECUSA response is going to be based on the ‘merits or demerits’ of the liturgical content and should not be separate at all.

As to the scratch icon, I have been told it is offensive before by posters in this section, however I suggest that almost all people would see that as confusion or bafflement rather than scorn, and that is what I intend from its use.

 

[PaladinValer]

I do not wish anyone to leave either. Nevertheless, the Anglican communion is a broad church and the issue highlighted in Christianity Today is seen as serious.

1. The facts remain that they lied in the article. We've proven it. Case closed, whether you like that or not.

Could you also re-consider comments like Christian ‘reich’ with an element of respect?

It was a very accurate use of words. Anyone who is going to twist words, as CT did, to spread lies and persecute a group in an all high and haughty way is absolutely non-Christian.

As I have pointed out the majority of the Anglican communion, the African and Southern Cone do not seem to be represented here.

Whom were also condemned in the ++Eames' Report. Or are we simply going to dwell on just one side's faults?

Well no it isn’t over. You may think it is lies but there are others in our church who believe the lie is what is being proposed and as I have contested there is every evidence to believe this is already being adopted as I have illustrated there is a bishop who has practically done the divorce liturgy.

I would really appreciate it, no, we would really appreciate it if you would have the candor and respect to stop switching topics in the middle of a thread dedicated to something else entirely.

 

[ps139]

Ahab,

Just so we can clarify and everyone can know your "debating status," you are in the Anglican Communion, correct?

Thanks

 

[PaladinValer]

Ps139, I would like to remind you that, in the ECUSA, this situation was officially put to rest. I think it would be a good idea to end this thread and if anyone would like to discuss the doctrines of the gender-nature of God to do it in a new thread.

 

[ahab]

Hi Ps 139

Again for the third time, I was baptised in an Anglican church, married and confirmed in an Anglican church, and I am an active member in fellowship in an Anglican church.

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,



Although they CT didn’t get all their facts entirely right, the article exposed major problems

Which is a fact whether you like it or not. Clearly as I have indicated some bishops are going to take this forward so it isn’t closed is it. So please dont keep saying it is.
As to the Christian ‘reich’ there is also a difference between misreprepresenting and insulting, CT doing the former and you doing the latter.


Yes the African and Southern Cone Anglicans were as indicated also found at fault, but please explain how that prevents them from being represented on this forum?

I would really appreciate it, no, we would really appreciate it if you would have the candor and respect to stop switching topics in the middle of a thread dedicated to something else entirely.

On the contrary, we are asked to support our positions with evidence, I have done this, have you? The liturgies and the defence of them is the problem for the majority, not the mistakes in the CT artcile.

 

[CSMR]

Hi Ps 139
Again for the third time, I was baptised in an Anglican church, married and confirmed in an Anglican church, and I am an active member in fellowship in an Anglican church.

I've had my Anglicanism questioned a couple of times not so long ago (not by ps139)! Fortunately we share impeccable credentials!

Could I suggest a moratorium on the use of this icon: ? Whatever the writer's intent, it seems to express scorn for those who disagree, rather than bafflement.

Bafflment here, no doubt for want of attention. Apart from a debatably pagan ritual, CT's questionable coverage of it, and the merits or dismerits of divorce liturgies, whether God is a woman, and a proposed link between the Religious Right and National Socialism. Hot stuff!
Once arguments have been exhausted, there's not much one can do. I am not sure that the discussion is profitable any longer. Even good arguments are normally not accepted, and one should move on and live to fight another day.

 

[ahab]

Ps139 has already asked me to add Anglican to my profile which I haven’t done so in fairness its my fault I have to keep repeating it.

 

[PaladinValer]

The majority? Ahab, if you truly were an Anglican, you would realize that the Anglican Communion is autocephalous. The ECUSA's non-official rites have no sway in the Southern Cone African provinces or any other province other than the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, period.

In addition, I do not see a bishop's endourcement of this unofficial rite. A priest may be recognized in the entire Anglican Communion, but a priest's "image" is only to his/her diocese. A bishop, on the other hand, is an official represenative of the entire Communion. Without a bishop's endourcement, you have no argument whatsoever about worrying about a "majority of Anglicans" having a problem with it. It isn't of their concern.

In fact, it is this exact behavior that the Windsor Report condemned of many African primates and provinces.

Lastly, for the nth time, the article in CT is wrong in calling it a liturgy, or even a eucharist. It only way an unofficial rite for a specific ministry. By your same logic, the fact that one of my priests suggested the Serenity Prayer to me in necessary times must also be a breach, since it also isn't an official prayer of the Church yet it received support by a priest.

 

[ps139]

Hi Ps 139

Again for the third time, I was baptised in an Anglican church, married and confirmed in an Anglican church, and I am an active member in fellowship in an Anglican church.

Hi Ahab,

Sorry to keep bugging you. But when you have the generic Christian icon, some here who do not know better may think you are debating. And then they might ask me "why don't you prevent this non-Anglican from debating" and I want them to know you ARE Anglican. .

You know if you had an Anglican icon things would be muuuuuuuuuch simpler.

Same for you CSMR!

or even if you can add it as your custom user title... I will give you the blessings for it!!!

 

[ahab]

PaladinValer,



The majority I referred to in the Anglican communion is represented by the membership in the Southern Cone and Africa.

If you truly were an Anglican

Excuse me, I have just told you I am. I have now changed the icon as requested.

The ECUSA's non-official rites have no sway in the Southern Cone African provinces or any other province other than the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, period.

Except that by the other areas it is increasingly being seen as another gospel to be distanced from.

do not see a bishop's endourcement of this unofficial rite.

Well I do, the bishops says this on diocesean websites… My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to "honor [each other] in the Name of God," made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows......”

Without a bishop's endoursement, you have no argument whatsoever about worrying about a "majority of Anglicans" having a problem with it. It isn't of their concern.

You perhaps need to wake up to the reality that the majority do have a problem and do have good reason to be concerned. The Windosr report was because of a bishops endorsement!

In fact, it is this exact behaviour that the Windsor Report condemned of many African primates and provinces.

Yes it did because it was looking at what hurt the communion, so you agree that that bishop appointment and endorsement of same-sex sex relationships was wrong then. If not, then don’t quote the Windsor report to me.

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,

Without a bishop's endourcement, you have no argument whatsoever about worrying about a "majority of Anglicans" having a problem with it. It isn't of their concern.

In fact, it is this exact behavior that the Windsor Report condemned of many African primates and provinces.

I agreed but you didnt answer.

So if you agree that other provinces should not offer alternative Episcopal oversight into the ECUSA as the Windsor report recommended, do you also adhere to a moratorium on no more same-sex blessings or appointments, as the Windsor report recommended? I mean do you accept the Windsor reports recommendations as a way forward?

 

[RobNJ]

You guys are slipping!!......usually this thread bubbles up outta the tar pits alot earlier in the day than this!

 

[ahab]

Hi RobNJ,

I had a lie in

 

[afnospam]

I'll give it a bump here... the focus should be broader than the Windsor Report. Some of my European counterparts read it very differently and as a strong rebuke; I don't. To me it sounded very Western in it's content and wording. It was a victory for ECUSA. They will dig in their heels and continue the slide into moral decay. Meanwhile the faithful will suffer as their sin is backed by Bishops and Priests with stature to speak and deceive many. The issue is broader than the Windsor Report and has been for about 40 years, especially the last 20. We no longer take God's Word as truthful, sufficent, and preeminent above our social trends. Sorry folks, God is blunt on the issue of homosexuality. It's a sin, just as adultery. We've let priests off easy with no fault diviorce, yet still call them to be Priests and elevate them to Bishops despite clear biblical qualifications. We allow children to be killed in the name on convenience. Never mind God says he knows them and calls them into a purpose. We debate sinful acts and discuss where their place in church liturgy, calling sin holy. Now we ask for church unity where scripture is clearly degraded to something less than God's very word to us? Yet scripture says unity comes as we dwell together in a unity under the authority of scripture. So there you have it... the issue is what we call Scripture now - irrelevant, optional, or God's Word backed by thousands of years of reason, tradition and shed blood of Apostles, Church Fathers, and other faithful. I trust the latter while ECUSA trusts the others.

 

[Zacharias]

I'll give it a bump here... the focus should be broader than the Windsor Report. Some of my European counterparts read it very differently and as a strong rebuke; I don't. To me it sounded very Western in it's content and wording. It was a victory for ECUSA. They will dig in their heels and continue the slide into moral decay. Meanwhile the faithful will suffer as their sin is backed by Bishops and Priests with stature to speak and deceive many. The issue is broader than the Windsor Report and has been for about 40 years, especially the last 20. We no longer take God's Word as truthful, sufficent, and preeminent above our social trends. Sorry folks, God is blunt on the issue of homosexuality. It's a sin, just as adultery. We've let priests off easy with no fault diviorce, yet still call them to be Priests and elevate them to Bishops despite clear biblical qualifications. We allow children to be killed in the name on convenience. Never mind God says he knows them and calls them into a purpose. We debate sinful acts and discuss where their place in church liturgy, calling sin holy. Now we ask for church unity where scripture is clearly degraded to something less than God's very word to us? Yet scripture says unity comes as we dwell together in a unity under the authority of scripture. So there you have it... the issue is what we call Scripture now - irrelevant, optional, or God's Word backed by thousands of years of reason, tradition and shed blood of Apostles, Church Fathers, and other faithful. I trust the latter while ECUSA trusts the others.

I trust the latter also: "God's Word backed by thousands of years of reason, tradition and shed blood of Apostles, Church Fathers, and other faithful."

 

[Colabomb]

Leave it to self-righteous, hateful, intolerant, psuedo-Christian people to even post an article claiming that.

What utter garbage. What utter hateful lies. What false Christianity.

I'm not surprised that Christianity Today is run by the "Religious Reich;" this is just more proof that it is.

Forgive me for this little rant, but after the continuing problems this forum's been having with people having no respect to Anglican/Old Catholic privacy and rights, not to mention people spreading incorrect information about my own Anglican Communion, but I'm personally just tired of it. I really wish people would be mature, respectful, adult, and, God-forbid, Christian enough to not make, well, you know, of themselves. Is it really that hard?

Ohhhh I got a lot to confess on Sunday I'm so angry...

Respectfully, There are a large number of Christians who find Christianity today to be Left, not Right of center.

I personally have not read enought to make my own decision, but as I am the Most Right Alligned Person on this board (That I know of) I am inclined to believe them. (My father is one of them)

 

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, it was proven false, and most here on STR are tired of specific-province bashing.

So can we please just drop it?

 

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,



Well may you be tired, but so are many others. One thing is for sure, if we are going to move forward as a communion, the alternative episcopal oversight by other provinces should stop as you agree and there should be a moratorium on same-sex blessings and appointments of active promoting same-sex clergy. Don’t you agree? Do you see that happening?

Once that is in place, I expect there will still be a big focus on the ECUSA, though things may setttle down.