Why not Rome?

[RestoreTheRiver]

I find it depressing too. I find myself looking longingly at Orthodoxy whenever I read here.

I guess no one is happy in the Anglican Church.

On the contrary, I am extremely happy in the AMiA, and with the direction of the vast majority of the communion. I am saddened by the direction chosen by TEC, but, still have many friends there. I appreciate their Christian life and witness, and that of others, who are not known to me.

While I disagree with Higgs, Polycarp1, and others of the more liberal bent, I've come to respect them, and often learn from their posts. I pray that we can put away the snark level, and return to real discussion.

Michael

 

[Catherineanne]

It is not that simple.

It never is.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I pray that we can put away the snark level, and return to real discussion.

Michael

Real discussion of what?

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

Real discussion of what?

I didn't have a specific topic in mind. My point was that I respect STR members of the more liberal bent, though I am a conservative; and that, at Christians, we ought to be able to talk to each other without resorting to insult or personal attack.

Michael

 

[Simon_Templar]

I didn't have a specific topic in mind. My point was that I respect STR members of the more liberal bent, though I am a conservative; and that, at Christians, we ought to be able to talk to each other without resorting to insult or personal attack.

Michael

my previous comment which was upsetting to Higgs may have been "snarky" (whatever that means) but it was neither insulting, nor a personal attack. (if thats what snarky means then it was not snarky). It was perhaps a little smarmy, maybe smug, and facetious.

my question "real discussion of what?" reflects my view point that the liberal elements of the Episcopal Church, as well as the other western Anglican Churches are completely apostate. I really, honestly don't see what there is to talk about, other than maybe the weather... You say "as Christians we should be able to..." but to me that is the issue. I honestly don't believe that the more liberal elements of the AC are Christian any more. They use some of the same language, but the really don't believe what I consider to be the basic core of Christianity.

I am deliberately speaking in general terms because I'm not trying to rail against anyone here, or call anyone out, etc. I'm explaining my own viewpoint and really exactly why the question of this whole thread has become more and more a question I ask myself.

I'd also like to clarify, a point originaly made by C.S. Lewis, when I say that from my view point I don't consider someone to be a Christian it is not a judgement of a person's value, nor is it a judgement of their niceness, or meanness, or intelligence, or politeness, etc. It is a judgement of one thing and one thing only... do they believe the core teachings that define Christianity. <staff edit>

There may be individual people who are liberal but still do hold the basic defining beliefs of Christianity. In my opinion those people are genuine, but deceived and in danger of being dragged down.

<staff edit> At that point there is nothing left to talk about.

 

[JasonV]

my previous comment which was upsetting to Higgs may have been "snarky" (whatever that means) but it was neither insulting, nor a personal attack. (if thats what snarky means then it was not snarky). It was perhaps a little smarmy, maybe smug, and facetious.

my question "real discussion of what?" reflects my view point that the liberal elements of the Episcopal Church, as well as the other western Anglican Churches are completely apostate. I really, honestly don't see what there is to talk about, other than maybe the weather... You say "as Christians we should be able to..." but to me that is the issue. I honestly don't believe that the more liberal elements of the AC are Christian any more. They use some of the same language, but the really don't believe what I consider to be the basic core of Christianity.

I am deliberately speaking in general terms because I'm not trying to rail against anyone here, or call anyone out, etc. I'm explaining my own viewpoint and really exactly why the question of this whole thread has become more and more a question I ask myself.

I'd also like to clarify, a point originaly made by C.S. Lewis, when I say that from my view point I don't consider someone to be a Christian it is not a judgement of a person's value, nor is it a judgement of their niceness, or meanness, or intelligence, or politeness, etc. It is a judgement of one thing and one thing only... do they believe the core teachings that define Christianity. I don't think liberal Anglicanism does anymore.

There may be individual people who are liberal but still do hold the basic defining beliefs of Christianity. In my opinion those people are genuine, but deceived and in danger of being dragged down.

So on the one hand I can understand having dialogue with individuals to a certain extent, but on the other, in my opinion liberal anglicanism (I refer to anglicanism because that is what's relavent here) is an anti-christ movement. It is actively fighting against the true gospel of the kingdom. People who are devoted to that cause, are serving and being driven by the spirit of anti-christ. At that point there is nothing left to talk about.

I feel sorry for you. If yours is the "true gospel" it is hardly good news.

 

[EpiscopalianGirl]

I am far too progressive for the Catholic Church. I respect the Catholic Church and all but they are just far too conservative and dogmatic for my tastes. And that is my reason for not going down the "Roman Road".

 

[Catherineanne]

It is a judgement of one thing and one thing only... do they believe the core teachings that define Christianity. I don't think liberal Anglicanism does anymore.

How marvelous! I get to quote Topol again!!!

"How often does a person get a compliment like this."



CA, Liberal Anglo Catholic, and proud of it. If I knew a way to be more Liberal Anglo Catholic in Canterbury than I am today, I would do it. No hesitation whatever. In doing so, I would not move away from God, but towards him.

God is that, greater than which we cannot conceive. St Anselm.

It is impossible for me to be more tolerant, more accepting, more loving of my brothers and sisters, or indeed for me to like candles and incense more, than God himself. It quite simply cannot be done.

It is, however, more than possible for me to be more bigoted, more small minded, more prejudiced, more angry, more jingoistic, more elitist, than God ever was, or will be. It happens every day.

 

[Catherineanne]

I am far too progressive for the Catholic Church. I respect the Catholic Church and all but they are just far too conservative and dogmatic for my tastes. And that is my reason for not going down the "Roman Road".

'The Roman Road runs straight and bare,
as the pale parting line in hair.'

Forget where that comes from. Some A level poem or other.

Idle googling reveals the following, which could well be an allegory of Roman Catholicism for some:

The Roman Road by Thomas Hardy​

The Roman Road runs straight and bare
As the pale parting-line in hair
Across the heath. And thoughtful men
Contrast its days of Now and Then,
And delve, and measure, and compare;

Visioning on the vacant air
Helmeted legionnaires, who proudly rear
The Eagle, as they pace again
The Roman Road.

But no tall brass-helmeted legionnaire
Haunts it for me. Uprises there
A mother's form upon my ken,
Guiding my infant steps, as when
We walked that ancient thoroughfare,
The Roman Road.

http://www.famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/thomas_hardy/poems/10736