Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[thestoat]

Seven Anglican priests and 300 members of six congregations are to join a new section of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Diocese of Brentwood says.

The move involves three parishes in Essex, and three in east London.

It is the largest known influx to date into the Ordinariate, which Pope Benedict established for Church of England members unhappy over issues such as the ordination of women.

...

Ordinariates allow Anglicans opposed to developments including women bishops, gay clergy and same-sex blessings to convert to Rome while maintaining some of their traditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12260569

Let me get this straight - Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King is on his ninth divorce, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, and Tiger Woods threw a leg over everything that moved, yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage?

[dgs49]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

It has long been acknowledged that there are essentially no theological differences between the RC Church and the main "trunk" of the Episcopal church. In recent decades, married Episcopal priests have with some regularity been able to convert to Catholicism and remain married. Eastern Orthodox churches have always had married priests (and of course, married clergy in the Church go all the way back to the Apostles).

The catalyst for the current developments is the fairly recent move by certain branches of the Episcopal Church (and the Church of England) to ordain women, and to "de-criminalize" homosexual sodomy. Episcopalians who object to this (presumably on Biblical grounds) are confronted with (a) remaining in a Church that has abandoned some of its core traditional teachings, based on longstanding interpretations of Sacred Scripture, or (b) joining another Church that, while having some objectionable traditions of its own, is at least trying to maintain its Biblical authenticity.

I suspect that nobody is completely happy about these groups moving to the RC church. These people would certainly prefer to remain where they are, but when confronted with two unpleasant options there's no telling what people will do. Here in Pittsburgh, we have a "breakaway" sect of the Episcopal church that also refuses to accept the re-definition of priesthood and sexual morality.

Should morality be decided by popular vote?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Stoat, I think their idea is more that sin destroys all things. Ordaining women bishops, accepting homosexual practise in the clergy and in solemnizing marriage (in church) is, in their view, as sinful as the actions of the lovely people that you list. There seems to be no claim about "destroying the institution of marriage". Rather, the implied claim is that the Anglican church in the UK is destroying the institution of the church.

People who accept the Bible as the word of God, written by humans but inspired (God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit, are on solid ground in refusing to accept that homosexuality is not sinful behaviour. As to women bishops, that's a more difficult call. Paul may have refused to allow women to teach men but he doesn't appear to prescribe that for everyone. I am uncomfortable listening to a woman preach but is the description of elders as "men with but one wife" prescriptive or simply descriptive? (Whatever, the Roman church has that one truly ballsed up - bad choice of words)

People who do not accept the Bible as the word of God, etc. are of course free to make up whatever kind of "christian" fellowship that they desire. Mormons, Christ Scientists, Anglicans, Catholics - whatever. The UK Anglican church has opted for secular political correctness and out of the Bible. These chaps are apparently opting out of Anglicanism and Christianity both.

Regards
Meade

No animals were injured in the course of typing this message

[Big RR]

People who do not accept the bible, or people who choose not to interpret it the same way you do? I think the latter. After all, you worship on sunday and eat non kosher items (don't you?), even though jesus said he was not here to change on bit of the (OT) law. One need not reject the bible or biblical teachings to have a difference of opinion about what it says. While some religions may well not regard the bible with the same reverence you do, many religions accept it as the "word of god" and interpret it as best they can.

[rubato]

Seven Anglican priests and 300 members of six congregations are to join a new section of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Diocese of Brentwood says.

Did they offer them 72 virgin boys? Each.


yrs,
rubato

[thestoat]

I just can't help feeling that for me, any god who was against women being equal or against people being gay, which is not a lifestyle decision after all, is not a god I would want to have anything to do with.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I just can't help feeling that for me, any god who was against women being equal or against people being gay, which is not a lifestyle decision after all, is not a god I would want to have anything to do with.

Neither is the case. All are equal - slave and free, Greek and Jew, etc etc (Colossians 3:11)- but there are different roles which complement each other in mutual love, respect and value. Adam was incomplete without Eve. Of course, men and women mess up the mutually rewarding relationship continually - but that's the way we are; sinners who get things wrong.

As to homosexuality, one cannot have it both ways. Or rather...... No, the point is.... I'm sorry I'll read that again.

As to homosexuality, the practise of it is a sin - just like the practise of adultery, or theft or a number of other things. It is to be noted that Christians, even from the first century, had been guilty of all those things and more besides before they became Christians (1Cor 11 "Some of you were like that"). I assume that people do not cease being what they are; instead they change their behaviour. The "new person" in Christ is to renounce their sins and become increasingly sanctified as time goes on. God is about forgiveness but not about ignoring sinful behaviour.

Now the Bible says nothing at all about the civil (secular) nature of homosexual relationships. Not does it charge the church with judging those OUTSIDE the church (1Cor 5:12-13); that's God's prerogative - another thing that "christians" seem to forget rather a lot. But the church is charged with judging those WITHIN the church (1Cor 5:9-11).

You are not called upon to "have anything to do with a god" who is against women or homosexuals. No-one is so called for that is not God.

Big RR: when you say

One need not reject the bible or biblical teachings to have a difference of opinion about what it says

, what is the different meaning that you get out of:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber

?

Cheers
Meade

[thestoat]

You are not called upon to "have anything to do with a god" who is against women or homosexuals. No-one is so called for that is not God.

Actually, the statement wasn't so much about me, because I don't have anything to do with any of the gods. More about the people moving over to Catholicism. They are saying that they are "for" this god who is against equal rights for women. As for gays. Maybe it is a sin, but those very people who believe that god thinks it a sin are the same people who believe god created us. So he created gays and then condemns them.

[dgs49]

So-called "gay" people are not the only ones who are "born with" a proclivity to commit sin. We all are.

In fact, I don't think "gay" people are any more inclined to copulate with other men than I am inclined to copulate with beautiful women who are not my wife. Yet in both cases, we are morally prohibited from satisfying our urges.

We are all inclined to want what we don't have, or can't have. Whether you believe in "god" or not, you have to restrain yourself from the impulse to satisfy every urge. "Mother nature" makes people who can only be sexually stimulated by small children. It's not voluntary on their part, but it is simply how they are made. Would you agree that they ought to restrain themselves?

[Scooter]

In fact, I don't think "gay" people are any more inclined to copulate with other men than I am inclined to copulate with beautiful women who are not my wife.

Really? You are more or less exclusively inclined towards having sex with other women, and have little or no interest in having sex with your own wife?

What was her reaction when you told her?

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Actually, the statement wasn't so much about me, because I don't have anything to do with any of the gods. More about the people moving over to Catholicism. They are saying that they are "for" this god who is against equal rights for women. As for gays. Maybe it is a sin, but those very people who believe that god thinks it a sin are the same people who believe god created us. So he created gays and then condemns them.

No still not on point. God is (I repeat) not against equal "rights" for women. There is no "right" for anyone at all to be an elder (bishop, presbyter), male or female. Equal pay for equal work? Not a biblical issue. Equal rights to own property? Not a biblical issue. And so on. The issue of ordaining women is a tough one, as I said (and as Big RR pointed out in his way) because it is possible to interpret that women should not be teaching men in a church - says nothing about industry or the army or parliament or schools etc - and that all elders must be "husbands of but one wife" which means all elders must be men. It's also possible to argue that Paul. guided by the Holy Spirit. was referring only to the particular audience to which he was writing - and therefore not to all churches in all times. The issue is not "equal rights" but what is or is not Biblical. These chaps are doing the correct thing by moving out of the church with which they do not agree.

I can't believe your last argument is anything other than a red herring. Your argument reduces to that God created all people and therefore it's His fault if they commit sins - since all of them, including me and you, are died in the wool sinners and we can blame God. There are two views (other than the "not a sin at all" view). Andrew likes to push the predestined button - God is in charge so no-one has a choice. One answer (if that is true) is "Yes indeed. So what?" God is the potter; we are the clay; He can do whatever He wants. OTOH maybe we believe that people in fact may choose God or choose sin. If they so choose, then that's that.

As to homosexuality, you are treading into dangerous ground. Either it is a lifestyle choice or is some kind of biological (therefore possibly medically correctable) condition. If it's a choice - there you have it. If it is not a choice but is entirely biological, it can certainly be seen as a deviation from natural condition. I believe homosexuals male and female are themselves somewhat divided on this issue; I may be incorrect.

What is not acceptable is for a church to contradict the clear word of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin against God. They have no ground to stand upon then in saying that the Bible is correct that murder is a sin - why? If God was wrong about homosexuality then He's equally likely to be wrong about all the other ones as well. That then reduces to "Well God didn't actually inspire the Bible - it's just men writing to work their own stuff out". In which case, ditch Jesus, the sermon on the mount, the resurrection (usually on of the first to go), and then start declaring that there is no "salvation from sin" anyway. Thus do "christians" end up being identical to the pagans that they kowtow to.

I prefer to think that all people have the ability (perhaps not the right word?) to be homosexual and at some stage in life perhaps even the interest - there but for the grace of God go I kind of thing. Men after all have a tendency toward screwing anything - dead or alive. That some women find women more congenial is hardly a surprise - so do I. That one can "love" a member of the same sex is also hardly a shock - we all love our children for example; I think most men and women have a "best friend" somewhere of whom it would be fair to say that "love" formed the basis of the relationship. But the choice is whether one conducts a sexual relationship with that person (not one's own children now!!!!). After a person becomes a Christian they are supposed to behave differently and abandon their desire to sin in preference to a desire to serve Christ. That's a love relationship which transcends physical ephemera.

I am not against a homosexual person becoming a pastor or a bishop - just as long as that person doesn't boast the "rightness" of their sin and continue in it. Thieves, murderers, all manner of sinners if truly believers and repentant are no different in condition than I - sinners who have been forgiven as they are and accepted as they shall be.

Again, while I think that leaving the Anglican church to join the Roman one is to move from the frying pan into the fire (idolatry is no less heinous than homosexuality) at least they did live out a principle they believe in. Two out of fhree ain't bad but it also ain't "good enough" - there is no good enough.

Cheers
Meade

PS as to having nothing to do with any of the gods - there is only one. If my belief doesn't mean that God exists (and it doesn't) then your disbelief doesn't mean that God doesn't exist (which He does). Therefore God has something to do with you I'd say. But there are people who believe that evil is just a thing that happens and there is ultimately no justice, nor good, nor right. All those little children who die in various ways (the ones that are somehow evidence that God doesn't exist) actually are meaningless and die for nothing at all - not even a hope for them. It's a bleak and very sad outlook IMO. I'm sure you don't see it that way though; I'm not slamming you on this matter. Ecclesiastes is a great book.

[thestoat]

Hmm. I am not sure I am explaining myself well Meade. These people are moving because either they believe in the stuff such as women's rights being less than men's or they are willing to follow a god who does. IMHO that is bad either way.

Your argument reduces to that God created all people and therefore it's His fault if they commit sins

Not really. I believe that we can do what we like in our lives within the parameters laid down for us at birth (the way "god made us"). So we could run marathons - unless we were born without legs. We can be attracted to the opposite sex - unless we are born gay.

As to homosexuality, you are treading into dangerous ground. Either it is a lifestyle choice or is some kind of biological (therefore possibly medically correctable) condition. If it's a choice - there you have it. If it is not a choice but is entirely biological, it can certainly be seen as a deviation from natural condition

I personally don't think it is a lifestyle choice. I know a few and they have had things tough. From what I can see they cannot help being attracted to the same sex any more than we can help being attracted to the opposite sex. Medically correctible? Maybe in the same way as being religious is

PS as to having nothing to do with any of the gods - there is only one

In your opinion. There have been many through the ages - currently worshipping a single one is in vogue

[Crackpot]

In your opinion. There have been many through the ages - currently worshipping a single one is in vogue

Not really logic dictates that any polytheistic diety's power isn't absolute and is therefore finite and flawed thus not a "god".

[Andrew D]

I can't believe your last argument is anything other than a red herring. Your argument reduces to that God created all people and therefore it's His fault if they commit sins - since all of them, including me and you, are died in the wool sinners and we can blame God. There are two views (other than the "not a sin at all" view). Andrew likes to push the predestined button - God is in charge so no-one has a choice. One answer (if that is true) is "Yes indeed. So what?" God is the potter; we are the clay; He can do whatever He wants.

Exactly. God, being omnipotent and all, has the power to do what God wishes. If God wishes to create people simply so that God can torture them forever, God has the power to do so.

The potter-and-clay metaphor is the Bible's perfect "sit down and shut up!" response to the otherwise insurmountable problem that it is God who chooses whether a person will be condemned to eternal torment; the person does not:

Rebecca's two sons had the same father, our ancestor Isaac. But in order that the choice of one son might be completely the result of God's own purpose, God said to her, "The older will serve the younger." He said this before they were born, before they had done anything either good or bad; so God's choice was based on his call, and not on anything they did. As the scripture says, "I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau."

One of you, then, will say to me, "If this is so, how can God find fault with a man? Who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes the pots has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and two make two pots from the same lump of clay, one for special occasions, and the other for ordinary use.

And the same is true of what God has done.

(Romans 9:10-22 (TEV) (emphases added).)

So there is the Bible's answer to the problem that according to scripture, we have no say in whether we are saved or damned; God simply does as he pleases: "Sit down and shut up! You don't like the fact that God created you just so that he could subject you to eternal torment, and you have no control over whether you end up in heaven or in hell? Too damn bad."

The question for us then becomes "what are we to make of the moral character of such a God?" I am no exemplar of virtue, but at least I have never stooped so low as to create a sentient being just so I could torture it.

And there is a good way to visualize the God of the Bible: maliciously gazing at the hell in which her/his/its creations are suffering because he/she/it wants them to suffer, gleefully rubbing her/his/its hands together and cackling insanely. People in hell may suffer eternally, but no matter what they have done, they can remain confident in one thing: At least they are not as base and vile as is the biblical God (who may bear no comprehensible similarity to the real God, if there is one).

If there really is a hell, rightness demands that its deepest pit be reserved for the biblical God her-/him-/itself.

[thestoat]

Not really logic dictates that any polytheistic diety's power isn't absolute and is therefore finite and flawed thus not a "god".

That pre-supposes that a god has to be omnipitent.

[thestoat]

what are we to make of the moral character of such a God?

Exactly!

[Crackpot]

Not really logic dictates that any polytheistic diety's power isn't absolute and is therefore finite and flawed thus not a "god".

That pre-supposes that a god has to be omnipitent.

Who else would be worth worshiping? of what worth is worsiping somthing whose power is transient?

[thestoat]

Who else would be worth worshiping

The Romans and Greeks had an answer for you.

[Crackpot]

So did the Norse, Druids, Aztecs, Mayans.....

problem is as you pointed out they're past tense. Modern theology just doesn't support such a system as "gods" can't claim to hold power only wield it momentatily. (and haphazzardly at that)

[thestoat]

So in your view a god must be omni-whatever and therefore there can be only one? I suspect the current god is like that. If we all made a collective effort to ignore him for a couple of generations he'd disappear forever