Split in Church of England

[Xiahou]

Well, not necessarily, because, as the article says,

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, and that was the same argument against women priests. It didn't stop them then, so I can't see why it would make any difference now.

Well, that's the business of the Anglicans. I just hope it won't happen in the Catholic Church (which it probably won't in my lifetime).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hate modular inconsistency. If you say that you are Christian and follow the Bible - follow the Bible. Even if you live in modern society. If you sin, repent - don't ask the church not to consider your sin a sin.

Btw - There are new Islamic banks that get rid of usurious fees. I have to work on my unforgiving wrath and my heavy addiction to internet pornography. Also, I need to marry my girlfriend to get out of this terminal state of sin. I think that I'm going to become a fundamentalist Catholic and see how that works for me.

I have a dichotomy in my understanding of the world. One part of me literally believes that there is no right or wrong. Anytime I hear about rights for gays beyond equal rights of all man in gods eyes, I get confused. If there is no real historical basis for the acceptance of their sinful acts (not the fact that they are alive) and the Bible treat it as an abomination; Where did we get the idea that it is "right" to allow them to marry or become bishops? We are literally starting to pull rights out of thin air and defending them with all ferocity.

I understand why people might want to allow a "Gay" bishop who is celibate and repents of his sins against god. If he views homosexual acts as abominable and takes any vows that he has made with the utmost sincerity, Then I'm not all that sure about my opinion on it.

When you give a bishopric to a guy like Gene Robinson, who left his wife and kids to start banging some dude as a priest and then moved into the rectory with him out of wedlock and continues to live an unrepentant abominable lifestyle - You are insane if you think that is appropriate in a Christian church.

Priests who are unrepentant in theft, murder, hetero/homo adultery or the use of gods name in vain too often etc should be eliminated from the runnings of Bishop and possibly "defrocked".

Also - Jesus took no women to join him as one of the 12 disciples. Are you saying that he was wrong and sexist? Thats what you'd say if he lived today. What makes you more knowledgeable about right and wrong than Jesus (If you are a Christian)?

Come back to the mother church. Hierarchy is here for a reason. The church was never meant to be a representative democracy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I agree with everything you say, except the last sentence. The Vatican's hierarchy means nothing in terms of direct religious importance. If you feel that hierarchy has its benefits, fine, stick with it.

But I'm quite sure that practicing Protestants are just as likely to make it to Heaven. And there are still plenty of them, who have plenty of good reasons for not returning to the Vatican.

EDIT: And if a 'gay' bishop fully repents and sorts himself out, then he should be treated as anyone else. If he does not he should be barred from ever entering a church.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with everything you say, except the last sentence. The Vatican's hierarchy means nothing in terms of direct religious importance. If you feel that hierarchy has its benefits, fine, stick with it.

But I'm quite sure that practicing Protestants are just as likely to make it to Heaven. And there are still plenty of them, who have plenty of good reasons for not returning to the Vatican.

Fair enough. As the basic tenants of heresy modify themselves, you may find that Vatican hierarchy is an effective tool in helping to retain biblical values much longer than churches full of people who are not theologians making democratic theological decisions that fly in the faces of their brother and sister churches. Run on sentence

Who knows.

Caledonian - Come back to the mother church! You may not want to now, but I think that you would find alot of people who agree with your opinions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, the ignorance regarding the CofE here is actually a little scary. True anglicans CANNOT become Catholics because Anglican Theology differs in several fundamental ways which have nothing to do with Gays or Women.

the two of the biggest examples are transubstantiation and the issue of "bad" priests. These Anglicans who don't want women Bishops will have to sacrifice much more important things than gender issues to join Rome.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow, the ignorance regarding the CofE here is actually a little scary. True anglicans CANNOT become Catholics because Anglican Theology differs in several fundamental ways which have nothing to do with Gays or Women.

the two of the biggest examples are transubstantiation and the issue of "bad" priests. These Anglicans who don't want women Bishops will have to sacrifice much more important things than gender issues to join Rome.

A number of High Church Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation. What is a "bad" priest?

Anglicans convert all the time. We have an absurd amount in common. they "CANNOT" convert?

[Tribesman]

Also - Jesus took no women to join him as one of the 12 disciples. Are you saying that he was wrong and sexist? Thats what you'd say if he lived today. What makes you more knowledgeable about right and wrong than Jesus (If you are a Christian)?

So Jesus didn't appoint any woman as one of the twelve , yet as soon as he died and there was this thing called Christianity there miraculously appear women disciples doing the same job as the men in spreading the word....seems like a bit of a precedent to me that does , and hey you don't even have to go to scriptures that were removed from the bible by the later church to show that to be the case .(though you might have to go back to the greek because the later church wasn't happy with what the scriptures said so changed the words)

[rvg]

The Church of England is experiencing a failure of leadership, and the Archbishop is largely at fault. The man doesn't have the guts to stand up for the traditional Church principles. So, the best solution for the Anglicans is indeed to re-enter the communion with Rome.

Step 1: Anglicans re-unite with Rome

Step 2: Orthodoxes re-unite with Rome

Step 3: Crusade!

Step 4: ???

Step 5: Profit!

Oh well, I can dream, can't I? Though I really do think that the world would be a better place if xtians ran the show everywhere.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A number of High Church Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation. What is a "bad" priest?

Anglicans convert all the time. We have an absurd amount in common. they "CANNOT" convert?

Uh uh, the Articles of Religion: http://www.churchsociety.org/publica...B_Articles.htm

Particually:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXV. Of the sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and, Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

There's plenty more. The Articles are quite specific on the Theological reasons for breaking with Rome. A traditional Anglican cannot remain true to their proffessed beliefs and theology while at the same time entering into communion with Rome.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Caledonian - Come back to the mother church! You may not want to now, but I think that you would find alot of people who agree with your opinions.

I come from a background of Scottish/Northern Irish ancestry. I think that is good enough reason not to look to Rome.

And talk of returning to the 'mother church' does little to repair relations with other churches. Despite mainstream views where I come from*, I am not anti-Catholic (and I'm sorry if I ever came across as being so, I am a bit insensitive at times). This is not the seventeenth century, I can't exactly be threatened with a forced conversion or burning at the stake.

But as far as I can see the hierarchy of the Vatican is unfounded. It is one thing to keep a congregation organised, it is another to actually integrate these things into religious practises. It is wrong, and any form of hierarchy should not be seen in a church. You are all equal!

The Vatican hierarchy does work to an extent (although lets be honest it can fail spectacularly at times) in keeping its clergy and congregation on, the 'right path'.

To me though it is not a problem if the Anglican bible-bashers drive their more honest congregation away from them, I hope the traditionalists are succesful in keeping their churches as they should be.

* That would be mainstream views outwith the liberals who think that even pointing out a flaw with another religion makes you some sort of sectarian maniac living 300 years in the past. Some people here have already made similar comments from what I've bene saying.