COI - Thoughts on Anglican Schism.

SirHenryGrattan

What do COI members think of the current issues in the Anglican Church surrounding the appointment of gay and lesbian Priests and Bishops?

People are adopting extreme positions. Will any COI members swim the Tiber?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6946709.ece

No wonder the Anglican church is collapsing - you simply do not hold any beliefs to be sacred. You want a church that is no more than a meeting place for any and every social minority. You do not believe in the bible and you do not want to worship God, you want to have a social meeting. Without faith there can not be a church and you have worked very hard to destroy your faith. Don't complain now that your church has gone too.

getz

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

What do COI members think of the current issues in the Anglican Church surrounding the appointment of gay and lesbian Priests and Bishops?

People are adopting extreme positions. Will any COI members swim the Tiber?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6946709.ece

No wonder the Anglican church is collapsing - you simply do not hold any beliefs to be sacred. You want a church that is no more than a meeting place for any and every social minority. You do not believe in the bible and you do not want to worship God, you want to have a social meeting. Without faith there can not be a church and you have worked very hard to destroy your faith. Don't complain now that your church has gone too.

church as a meeting place ,yes that is what jesus preached ,christian churches of to-day have very little to-do with early christian teachings ,

SirHenryGrattan

getz wrote: »

church as a meeting place ,yes that is what jesus preached ,christian churches of to-day have very little to-do with early christian teachings ,

Would you say that most COI members are liberals?

getz

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Would you say that most COI members are liberals?

i would say they are christians the same as most catholics are christians,jesus ,gods house has many mansions,it is not for us to tell other christians they are wrong,to do so would be un-christian ,and i am not from the COI

LordSutch

This is a really tough topic for all Anglicans, for it really might end in a 'schism' the likes of which we haven't seen in the Christian church since the reformation! suffice to say its a very delicate subject at the moment.

homer911

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Would you say that most COI members are liberals?

Wow! on the 3rd post you managed to sidetrack your own thread!

philologos

I don't think it is as major an issue than is made out. The Roman Catholic Church has about as much issues between liberalism and conservatism as any other denomination does. The COI by it's nature is more low church than other Anglican provinces due to the strong influence of Catholicism anyway. To be a real alternative to Catholicism there would have to be differences in how it is practiced.

getz

both the mainstream christian churches are going through growing pains, the old days when the flock would except anything said to the as gospel has gone, people now read the new testament for themselves and then make their own mind up what christianity is,remember the churches not that long ago believed only the priests should read it,to read it youself could mean you being burned to death

SirHenryGrattan

Camelot wrote: »

This is a really tough topic for all Anglicans, for it really might end in a 'schism' the likes of which we haven't seen in the Christian church since the reformation! suffice to say its a very delicate subject at the moment.

Are there any Forward In Faith or Traditional Anglican Communion groups in Ireland and if so what do they think of the offer from Rome?

LordSutch

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Are there any Forward In Faith or Traditional Anglican Communion groups in Ireland and if so what do they think of the offer from Rome?

I personally have not come across any, but i'm sure they exist in Ireland, albeit on a much smaller scale than they might in Britain, for as Jakkass has already pointed out "The COI by it's nature is more low church" hence we are probably further away from Rome than many Anglican 'high church' people who might indeed feel the pull from Rome to be very enticing indeed, seeing as the beliefs/practices between Anglican High Church & Roman Catholicism are wafer thin.

Graces7

Amen to this.

Those in any tradition whose faith is in Jesus rather than in a human system, have always had the capacity to make choices. And to stay pure within the tradition by choosing.

The problem comes when "die hards" start equating doctrine with Jesus. and to give all teachings all equal weight.

And start using phrases like "cafeteria" or " "a la carte"

Pope Benedict spoke tellingly of the priority that must be given to individual conscience which he opined is above the Church, while he hoped that the Church would educate that conscience.

Some can stay within a tradition and continue their life and devotion therein regardless of what is happening at episcopal levels. For others, it is impossible to remain.

Many now are finding their allegiance to Rome very tenuous. And the same with Anglicans.

Individual choice. Always.

Ultimately, of course, it is more than possible to be a strong and true Christian when not allying to any tradition.

This has always been so, thankfully

getz wrote: »

both the mainstream christian churches are going through growing pains, the old days when the flock would except anything said to the as gospel has gone, people now read the new testament for themselves and then make their own mind up what christianity is,remember the churches not that long ago believed only the priests should read it,to read it youself could mean you being burned to death

SirHenryGrattan

The Times is pushing a Gay agenda. What will Rowan do now?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6951001.ece

philologos

I think cafeteria and alacarte are perfectly acceptable terms in usage. We are called by Jesus Himself to follow the Gospel, fully. The Scriptures are meant to be our moral guide, not something we pluck out of. It's my hope that as I grow to know more of the Biblical text that I will start expressing it's overlying sentiment all the more. Faith is meant to be transparent, not hidden.

lmaopml

I totally agree with that sentiment Jackass. We either 'are' or we 'are not', and yes it should show and be transparent. While I understand that we shouldn't judge others, and we don't know the heart of anybody etc. I think it's wrong to actually promote a laissez faire attitude to our individual faiths...Take one thing on board that suits and drop another etc. Soon, there is only a watered down version of the original.

Graces7

Exaclty so; I think we are talking at cross-purposes though.

Mea culpa as just now I am in deep prayer re all this.

My reference was to the custom of some Catholics of using the catchims INSTEAD of the gospel and thus if there is a conflict and eg i say I am staying with the gospel, they call me a cafeteria catholic.

My life is Jesus based,absolutely.

And if we are not Jesus based, but canon law legalists?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think cafeteria and alacarte are perfectly acceptable terms in usage. We are called by Jesus Himself to follow the Gospel, fully. The Scriptures are meant to be our moral guide, not something we pluck out of. It's my hope that as I grow to know more of the Biblical text that I will start expressing it's overlying sentiment all the more. Faith is meant to be transparent, not hidden.

lmaopml

Graces7 wrote: »

Exaclty so; I think we are talking at cross-purposes though.

Mea culpa as just now I am in deep prayer re all this.

My reference was to the custom of some Catholics of using the catchims INSTEAD of the gospel and thus if there is a conflict and eg i say I am staying with the gospel, they call me a cafeteria catholic.

My life is Jesus based,absolutely.

And if we are not Jesus based, but canon law legalists?

Are you sure your Catholic? A tad presumptious to think we read the Catechism above the bible? I don't know anybody who does that.... As a Catholic we believe in the guidance of Jesus Church on earth, otherwise we're not really Catholic, we're something else.

lmaopml

Anyway, sure I'll leave this thread for it's intended purpose

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

I totally agree with that sentiment Jackass. We either 'are' or we 'are not', and yes it should show and be transparent. While I understand that we shouldn't judge others, and we don't know the heart of anybody etc. I think it's wrong to actually promote a laissez faire attitude to our individual faiths...Take one thing on board that suits and drop another etc. Soon, there is only a watered down version of the original.

I think it is much better for Christians to recognise that our 'faiths' are man's well-meaning but imperfect attempts to interpret the Gospel. Therefore we should be free to accept that in our movements which we feel is truly Gospel and to reject, or ignore, that in our traditions which is not Gospel. (This approach, of course, presupposes that we recognise at least some validity in one another's churches, rather than insisting that our own is correct and everybody else is wrong).

Of course if we find that we are rejecting most everything in our church as 'non-Gospel' then it's probably time to find another church.

lmaopml

Cheers PDN, I didn't intend a slight in the least...although it could be taken up that way I truely believe we are all Catholic in the sense of the Universal Church, and all Jesus children in Christianity. I just don't like seeing misrepresentations about other Catholics in general, that are really only propaganda or personal opinion. My intention would be to point out the presumption rather than deride anothers faith...I mean well, not ill.

rohatch

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

What do COI members think of the current issues in the Anglican Church surrounding the appointment of gay and lesbian Priests and Bishops?

I think it is a great idea. The catholics and muslims should follow.

There is no reason nowadays why the appointment of gay and lesbian or married priests should offend anyone.

Graces7

Referring to Catholics who do this and thus call others cafeteria Catholics.


Not presumptuous at all; that is a bad accusation to make indeed and offensive. Really!

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you sure your Catholic? A tad presumptious to think we read the Catechism above the bible? I don't know anybody who does that.... As a Catholic we believe in the guidance of Jesus Church on earth, otherwise we're not really Catholic, we're something else.

Graces7

Really? Would offend more than would approve. And does.

rohatch wrote: »

I think it is a great idea. The catholics and muslims should follow.

There is no reason nowadays why the appointment of gay and lesbian or married priests should offend anyone.

Graces7

Amen.

But there are many "hardcore Catholics" who disagree violently with this.Try the phatmass phorum!!

PDN wrote: »

I think it is much better for Christians to recognise that our 'faiths' are man's well-meaning but imperfect attempts to interpret the Gospel. Therefore we should be free to accept that in our movements which we feel is truly Gospel and to reject, or ignore, that in our traditions which is not Gospel. (This approach, of course, presupposes that we recognise at least some validity in one another's churches, rather than insisting that our own is correct and everybody else is wrong).

Of course if we find that we are rejecting most everything in our church as 'non-Gospel' then it's probably time to find another church.

blackbox

Jakkass wrote: »

I think cafeteria and alacarte are perfectly acceptable terms in usage. We are called by Jesus Himself to follow the Gospel, fully. The Scriptures are meant to be our moral guide, not something we pluck out of. It's my hope that as I grow to know more of the Biblical text that I will start expressing it's overlying sentiment all the more. Faith is meant to be transparent, not hidden.

...don't think so. - The gospels didn't exist in Jesus's time.

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

I think cafeteria and alacarte are perfectly acceptable terms in usage. We are called by Jesus Himself to follow the Gospel, fully. The Scriptures are meant to be our moral guide, not something we pluck out of. It's my hope that as I grow to know more of the Biblical text that I will start expressing it's overlying sentiment all the more. Faith is meant to be transparent, not hidden.

i must be wrong because i was certain jesus said the only way was to follow the laws of moses,i am under the impression that all the apostles still practiced jewism with a christain flavour

Graces7

Jesus IS the New Covenant.

Some parts of Mosaic Law were directly replaced by Him; eg hygiene, dietary. sabbath laws.....

Others, eg sexual, were not and these elements still hold good thus.

Not Jewish thus.

getz wrote: »

i must be wrong because i was certain jesus said the only way was to follow the laws of moses,i am under the impression that all the apostles still practiced jewism with a christain flavour

PDN

blackbox wrote: »

...don't think so. - The gospels didn't exist in Jesus's time.

Oh for heavens sake, go and read a book!

Jakkass referred to "the Gospel" (singular - greek - euangellion - literally 'The Good News') not "the Gospels" (plural - books written about the life of Jesus.)

getz

jesus praticed the laws of moses untill his crucifixion ,the ;last supper; was a jewish celebration of the passover ,a commemorated of the escape from slavery in egypt,only later christian churches changed it meaning ,jesus did not

PDN

getz wrote: »

jesus praticed the laws of moses untill his crucifixion ,the ;last supper; was a jewish celebration of the passover ,a commemorated of the escape from slavery in egypt,only later christian churches changed it meaning ,jesus did not

According to the Gospels, Jesus radically reinterpreted the meaning of the Passover Meal so that it spoke of His body and blood being sacrificed, rather than that of the lamb in Exodus. He also commanded His disciples to celebrate it in memory of Himself rather than in memory of Moses or the Exodus.

getz

PDN wrote: »

According to the Gospels, Jesus radically reinterpreted the meaning of the Passover Meal so that it spoke of His body and blood being sacrificed, rather than that of the lamb in Exodus. He also commanded His disciples to celebrate it in memory of Himself rather than in memory of Moses or the Exodus.

i know that has been taught to me in many a bible class by christian teachers,but the gospels contradict that, also by saying,matthew 5;17-18...do not think that i [jesus] have come to abolish the law or the prophets,i have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.i tell you the truth.untill heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter,not the least stroke or a pen,will by any means disappear from the law,untill everything is accomplished.he well may of said remember me,but he never said in place of the passover.i am not a practicing jew or christian any more ,but i think its important not to except as blind faith anything without checking yourself ,

philologos

blackbox wrote: »

...don't think so. - The gospels didn't exist in Jesus's time.

If you believe the Gospel accounts are authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus you cannot but admit that Jesus called us to live and even be willing to give up our lives for the Gospel. Perhaps this view might be perceived as being a bit radical, but I can't help but be inspired by what Jesus calls us all to do even if living it out is incredibly difficult we must try to reach the ideal rather than cut it short to our own fallible standard.