Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[Crackpot]

I'd more or less agree, though as everything old is new again we may regress to polytheism eventually.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd more or less agree, though as everything old is new again we may regress to polytheism eventually.

What's with "may" and "eventually"? Don't you watch Oprah?

[loCAtek]

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

Well, that was my point in posting about SiVIC. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there appears to be an atheistic notion that more scientific education will result in less religious belief. Granted, religion is becoming more secular and inclusive, see: the Inter-faith movement, but rather than disappearing, it is evolving to accept all forms of worship, and dismiss none of them.

E.G. Pagans/Wiccans are no longer shunned/burned, but are ceremoniously interned along side Christians, Jews, etc.

[Lord Jim]

If people don't choose to have religious faith, that's fine with me, but what I don't get is the fanatical, sneering, hatred and loathing for religion and religious people that I frequently see expressed on this board. (And other places) People usually act that way towards things they are afraid of....They seem to be on some sort of mission to try to "stamp out" religion.....they seem to find the mere fact that other people do have religious faith offensive....

If any other group of people, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, etc. were talked about in the sort of derisive way that people of faith are talked about, I'm sure many of these same folks would be among the first to condemn it. I've said it before and I'll say it again; people of faith, (particularly Christians, and especially Catholics) have become the new "niggers"....It's become socially acceptable in many quarters to say anything about them, no matter how bigoted.....

There are alot of things I like about this board, but I have to say that I find the militant, insulting brand of atheism frequently on display here to be it's most unattractive feature.

I've never seen so damn many heathens in one place....

Sometimes I feel like I've wandered in to a Salute To Madelyn Murray O'Hare dinner.....

[loCAtek]

Careful Jim, that kind of talk will get you banned ignored. Bigots don't like to be told they're bigots.

[Crackpot]

It is in large part because people using the cover of religion have done some truly horrible things in both large and small scale. And to answer your sub question Catholics having been both the primary historical power and most flagrant abuser (to both non-believers and protestants) get an extra helping of hate.

Heck it was "Catholic" blind bigotry, hypocrisy, self-righteousness and utter lack of compassion (all from multiple sources mind you) that drove me from what you call "the one true church" into years of atheism. The truth of the matter is the Catholic and other Christian Churches have so abused their positions of power even to the extent of contradicting the teachings of what they profess to follow that serious damage has been done to the institutions credibility as a whole. On top of that in the western world we have freedom of religion (and therefore freedom to leave) that allows us to leave our respective abusive situations and speak out against those that have callously scarred us.

And this is coming from a believer.

Personally time, study, and an understanding of the follies of human nature have allowed me to move past much of the pain and hate (though Father Bob still has a special place in my heart for my much deserved scorn) and I've been able to move past it and divorce the Divine from the misguided and/or corrupt.

In short it's not so much a "race" thing but a political thing and, unfortunately, historically the Catholic Church and others have a long history of putting Sarah Palins in positions of power.

[thestoat]

This is a board for arguments about religion though ...

[thestoat]

the fanatical, sneering, hatred and loathing for religion and religious people

Can you give some examples?

[Lord Jim]

It is in large part because people using the cover of religion have done some truly horrible things in both large and small scale.

Well CP, I don't think anyone would dispute that; I certainly wouldn't I doubt that Meade or Dave/Mort would either....Corrupt and/or sadistic people have used all sorts of excuses as cover for their actions. they always have and they always will... (Supposedly acting in the name of "the people" probably heads the list...At the moment we have a dictator massacring his own people using that excuse.)

But how does this historical fact provide a basis for mocking people's religious views, or calling them stupid or ignorant for holding them? How does it provide a basis for getting completely bent out of shape if a small child comes home reciting some sweet, comforting religious proverb, or finding fault with people bringing hope and assistance to folks living in severe deprivation if these people also bring a religious message?

I just don't get the connection. This doesn't strike me as the sort of behavior that people secure in their convictions engage in. I used to chide one of the biggest anti-religious bigots I've ever encountered, EGlide, (gee it's such a pity he hasn't shown up over here....) that he behaved like a man who lived in mortal terror that any moment some Holly Roller preacher was going to come to come along who would shake him loose from his atheism.

[Lord Jim]

the fanatical, sneering, hatred and loathing for religion and religious people



Can you give some examples?

Are you kidding?

When I have more time, I'll bring a selection of the many many comments of this nature that regularly appear in this forum. I'm amazed that you haven't noticed this. I expected that some folks might want to justify it, but I never even considered the possibility that anyone would question that it has been going on. It's so ubiquitous.

[Scooter]

I'm amazed that you haven't noticed this. I expected that some folks might want to justify it, but I never even considered the possibility that anyone would question that it has bee going on. It's so ubiquitous.

Oh, I'm so sorry, I got confused for a moment about who it was that said that, because that sounded so much like another person's response whenever asked to provide evidence to support his assertions about what others had posted.

[Crackpot]

It is in large part because people using the cover of religion have done some truly horrible things in both large and small scale.

Well CP, I don't think anyone would dispute that; I certainly wouldn't I doubt that Meade or Dave/Mort would either....Corrupt and/or sadistic people have used all sorts of excuses as cover for their actions. they always have and they always will... (Supposedly acting in the name of "the people" probably heads the list...At the moment we have a dictator massacring his own people using that excuse.)

But how does this historical fact provide a basis for mocking people's religious views, or calling them stupid or ignorant for holding them? How does it provide a basis for getting completely bent out of shape if a small child comes home reciting some sweet, comforting religious proverb, or finding fault with people bringing hope and assistance to folks living in severe deprivation if these people also bring a religious message?

I just don't get the connection. This doesn't strike me as the sort of behavior that people secure in their convictions engage in. I used to chide one of the biggest anti-religious bigots I've ever encountered, EGlide, (gee it's such a pity he hasn't shown up over here....) that he behaved like a man who lived in mortal terror that any moment some Holly Roller preacher was going to come to come along who would shake him loose from his atheism.

Because it is still going on. Maybe not on large scale but it is going on. I've noticed the amount of people who are lapsed Catholics and those who keep the faith is directly defendant of the quality of the priests in the local parish/parishes. locally the vast majority of priests were so bad that in a generation a largely catholic area became Lapsed Catholic so much so that it's become a bad joke. It's sort of an Irony that the local Protestant Church I attend the life-longers feel "left out" for not having been a lapsed catholic.

You have to realize that the reason people get so bent out of shape out of religious thing is that in most cases that is because The church in it's various incarnations is the one directly responsible for manys loss of innocence. it doesn't take advanced age to understand that those who are preaching forgiveness and repentance are looking down their noses at anyone who dares admit fault and that those who claim to love their fellow man are shunning those that aren't part of their sect. Those are just two of the blatant hypocrisies that people face every day from those who call themselves Christian from any station within their organizations.

When forced to face such things at such a formative age is it really any wonder those who have gone through it think we'd be better off without?

[rubato]

Who would follow a god who made people homosexuals and then punished them for it?

Idiotic. Unless you need to hate someone. Real bad.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

The portion of the Worldwide Anglican Communion -- the churches in full communion with the See of Canterbury -- that has gone ahead with the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of non-celibate gay priests, and, most crucially, the consecration of non-celibate gay bishops is wildly out of step with most of the Communion. The Communion is being torn apart.

Most people do not realize that the Anglican Communion is not the WASP (yes, Anglicans are Protestants) organization that we are accustomed to seeing in the UK, the US, Australia, etc. In fact, the Communion is majority non-white and becoming more so all the time.

It is generally acknowledged that membership figures for the Church of England -- the Communion includes thirty-eight Provinces[1], of which the Church of England is one -- are unreliable due to the Church of England's status as an established religion. Indeed, depending on how one counts, membership in England varies by a factor of more than twenty-five, from twenty-five million down to nine-hundred forty-four thousand.

But in the rest of the world, the picture is quite clearer. The Anglican Church in Africa[2] (not including the minuscule number of North African Anglicans who are in The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East) is huge (by comparison to England) and exploding. The Anglican Church in Africa accounts for a full seventy percent of all Anglicans outside of England. Add the Anglican Church in India and its neighbors[3], and the proportion is over eighty percent. The Anglican Church in the mostly white areas[4], by contrast, makes up only a bit less than sixteen percent of the total. Even taking the Church of England's most extravagant claim (twenty-five million) as true[5], the Anglicans in England and the other mostly white areas account for only about forty percent of the total; taking the lowest reported number as true, the Church of England is only a blip in the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

When various Anglican Churches began ordaining women, there was quite a stir. But the ordination of women has not been limited to the mostly white areas, and over time, the criticisms have become, for the most part, somewhat muted. When various Anglican Churches began blessing same-sex unions, there was more of a stir.

But when The Episcopal Church in the USA consecrated a non-celibate gay man a bishop, much of the Worldwide Anglican Communion -- especially the Africans, and most especially the Nigerians (The Church of Nigeria is generally regarded as the largest Anglican church in the Communion) -- went ballistic. Various Provinces declared themselves out of communion with the ECUSA. Some of them commissioned bishops to evangelize the ECUSA -- to bring the US Episcopal Church back to Anglicanism. (There had alread been a bit of that, but it took a huge jump.)

Some dioceses in the US and Canada (which had not consecrated such a bishop but had taken various steps indicating that it was leaning in that direction) left their respective provinces without -- at least, so they hoped and continue to believe -- severing their communion with Canterbury. Another dear friend of mine (with very different leanings than the aforementioned one) took his diocese out of the ECUSA. He had the overwhelming support of the clergy and laity in his diocese. He was deposed as a bishop in the ECUSA, but he and his diocese were accepted into the Province of the Southern Cone (South America). Those dioceses (and various other Anglican/Episcopalian communicants) have formed the Anglican Church of North America, a body considering itself in communion with Canterbury but not with the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada. It remains to be seen what the Worldwide Communion will make of that.

The Worldwide Communion is falling apart. It appears to me that the end result -- probably with a few surprises along the way -- will end up fragmented. Most of the predominantly white areas will stick to their guns, insisting that admitting non-celibate gay people as full and equal members is the way forward for the Communion in the twenty-first century. Most of the predominantly black areas will stick to their guns, somewhat grudgingly accepting gay people who are repentant as full and equal members. And some parts of the Communion (most likely, it seems to me, Brazil and some of the Asian churches) will waffle.

All of which, by the way, illustrates a fundamental difference between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. If a Roman Catholic diocese (or supra-diocesan entity) consecrates a non-celibate gay person a bishop, the Pope stretches forth his Infalliable Hand and says "No." And that's the end of it. When an Anglican Province consecrates a non-celibate gay person a bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury stretches forth his hand and says "We should talk about this."



-------------------------

1. It also includes a handful of extraprovincial churches, and it is in "full communion" with some other churches, most notably the Old Roman Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Succession. (A dear friend of mine was originally ordained in one of those churches, and when he became an Episcopalian (the US name for US Anglicans), his previous ordination was recognized as applicable to his Episcopalian priesthood.)

2. Burundi, Central Africa, Congo, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southern Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and West Africa.

3. Bangladesh, North India, Pakistan, South India, and Sri Lanka.

4. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand (Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia), Scotland, the US, and Wales.

5. The Church of England has said that about one-million seven-hundred thousand of its members attend services at least once a month.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who would follow a god who made people homosexuals and then punished them for it? Idiotic. Unless you need to hate someone. Real bad.
yrs, rubato

Granted the logic, why should God punish Adolf Hitler? or anyone at all for anything?

It's necessary in framing the red herring question to wilfully ignore the fact that the Bible explains that man was in perfect communion with God until he chose to disobey the one simple instruction give to him. After that, sin entered the world and all men (and women) are born as behavioural sinners, tainted by the first man's disobedience, just as we are tainted by genetic abnormalities.

No-one is punished for being a sinner - people are punished for failing to admit their sin, seek repentance which is freely given and for continuing to indulge their sinful desires.

Meade

[Scooter]

Sure, let's skip over the typical pedestrian comparisons to adulterers, alcoholics and thieves, and jump right to comparing homosexuals to Adolph Hitler.

But no, doing so doesn't demonstrate the depth of Meade's contempt for homosexuals in the slightest :

[thestoat]

Meade - do you really think homosexuals have free will and can just think to themselves "well, tried that - it was fun - now I'll just start fancying the opposite sex"?

A murderer can decide "I'll just not kill anyone today". Job done. Nobody hurt. All the murderer has to do is continue each day.
You'd deny a homosexual love and companionship for the rest of their lives? What could they do - what choice is open to them - in order to enjoy the same possibilities for love and companionship and still appease your god?

[Crackpot]

This subject has been a big issue regarfing my faith and one that I think the church as a whole has approached wrong especially in light of adulturers, alchoholics and thieves. Are they denied salvation or by those acts is thier salvation lost? Why then would Homosexuals be treated any different? I can understand some of the trepidation twards homosexuals and Homosexual rights with Christions but I flat out don't get their outright exclusion.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade - do you really think homosexuals have free will and can just think to themselves "well, tried that - it was fun - now I'll just start fancying the opposite sex"? A murderer can decide "I'll just not kill anyone today". Job done. Nobody hurt. All the murderer has to do is continue each day. You'd deny a homosexual love and companionship for the rest of their lives? What could they do - what choice is open to them - in order to enjoy the same possibilities for love and companionship and still appease your god?

I think if you check page 1 you'll find that I don't "deny" homosexuals love and companionship. Not have I suggested (nor would I suggest) that a homosexual person can simply "start fancying the other sex". Nor do I think that anyone has to "appease God". No-one can do that - which is why God died on the cross, suffering Himself the punishment for all human sins. One believes that or one does not.

If one does believe it, then yes - the situation changes. If the church believes that the Bible is the revealed word of God, than it should not ordain a murderer as bishop if he says "I'm proud of who I am and I intend to murder again if I feel like it". It should not ordain a married man who says he intends to get a divorce. The church should not ordain a homosexual who declares an intent to continue in his sin. The church does not control what goes on outside the church amongst pagans.

I am unclear if you compare homosexuality to alcoholism and serial killing? I do not - except to say that all three are sinful behaviours which makes them differ from me not one whit. Other than the salvation thing which is open to all who will renounce their sins.

crackpot there is only one unforgivable sin. All those you mention are forgiven if they truly believe, repent and renounce their sin. If they keep at it, then they didn't believe in the first place. No formerly homosexual believer should ever, ever be rejected by the church - even for positions of leadership - if they cease to practise the sin itself.

Meade

[Big RR]

The Worldwide Communion is falling apart. It appears to me that the end result -- probably with a few surprises along the way -- will end up fragmented. Most of the predominantly white areas will stick to their guns, insisting that admitting non-celibate gay people as full and equal members is the way forward for the Communion in the twenty-first century. Most of the predominantly black areas will stick to their guns, somewhat grudgingly accepting gay people who are repentant as full and equal members. And some parts of the Communion (most likely, it seems to me, Brazil and some of the Asian churches) will waffle.

and that is bad because?

All of which, by the way, illustrates a fundamental difference between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. If a Roman Catholic diocese (or supra-diocesan entity) consecrates a non-celibate gay person a bishop, the Pope stretches forth his Infalliable Hand and says "No." And that's the end of it. When an Anglican Province consecrates a non-celibate gay person a bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury stretches forth his hand and says "We should talk about this."

the pope may say "No", but infallibility or not, it is my understanding that he cannot unconsecrate a bishop,or deny those the bishop names as priests/bishops are priests/bishops. He can tell them they cannot act as bishops/priests, but they are priests/bishops if they are duly made so by a bishop. Indeed, isn't that why anglican priests are being considered for RC priesthood in the first place--because the lineage of their bishops goes back to 16th century RC bishops?