It is isn't it! We know what S.Paul said about Charity! [/quote]As a note, the ancient Celtic Church had a different view of women in the church than did the Romanists.[/quote] Tell us about it, chapter & verse? [/quote] BTW, I suppose you would exclude the Old Catholics from those having "catholicity". [/quote] Not if they held to Christ's Revelation! Mind you, they are mostly Polish N.C.C.& some few Utrecht!
You know, before I came here, I did not have a bad opinion of the "High Church" party in the Anglican Communion. But after being called a heretic many times and seeing other faithful Christian denominations disparaged and slandered, I might have to revise my opinion of the "High Church" party. I do try not to paint with a broad brush, though.
Stop crying, " Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit "...abandonment of the Church. In my defence your honour, you do not appear to agree with many doctrines of the Church in England. In fact you did claim earlier to be a protestant! I think you protest too much!
Really? Where did I claim to be that? Tell me, what did I specifically claim to be? BTW, the Anglican churches can be said to be both Protestant and Catholic, being a via media. In fact, the original name of the Anglican body in the USA is the Protestant Episcopal Church. Sorry to have to break that to your exclusivist Catholic sensibilities.
The ,' Church,' you are a member of might well be protestant, I would never doubt it. Even so the the Anglican Church has never used the term in a theological way. They refused a request by the Stadtholder, William of Orange to use the Noun in correspondence with his Dutch Calvinist Sect, in the 1690s,pointing out that it was not a theological idea accepted by the Church in England and this , inspite of the fact that he had an army of occupation, 10,000 Northern Europeans , at his back! I have read that Queen Anne also refused to commend the term, though It was not supported. The use by our American friends in the 1780s ? referred to the anti papalist stand dating from the 1570s, and was thus political rather than religious!
It can become very tiresome indeed. I am sympathetic with the "High" Church in many ways, but my chiefest inspirations are the Huguenots & Dutch Calvinists of the 16th century. Their appeals to toleration, mercy, and harmony are beautiful. Perhaps they were not Anglican, but they were Christians in heart. When did they excommunicate people? Even the papists who ruthlessly murdered them were not 'excommunicated' by the virtuous French & Dutch, under siege. If the Methodists were like these, I admire them.
Well, you can disparage my church all you want by putting it in parenthesis, but it has all the elements that Anglicanism has, and by disparaging it, that doesn't make my opinion of you any higher. And one thing you can't get around -- the 39 Articles are a Protestant confession of faith, not a Catholic one. You have to look elsewhere to find Anglicanism's "Catholicity" -- namely, the threefold ministry, etc.
I am firmly supportive of Anglicanism as a via media. It seems, however, that the Catholic side would like to do away with the Protestant side of that equation.
Are you even Anglican? So many people have so many labels in the "Religion" column that it's hard to tell anymore.
Is this addressed to me? If so, I was a member of TEC for years but no longer. I am ordained in an independent Old Catholic jurisdiction, and I am an episcopal member of the Fellowship of St. Aidan and St. Columba, a vehicle for clergy Associate Membership in the AMiA, for those who share the vision and goals of the AMiA and want to support it.
Cousin, Instead of getting all emotional read what I have quoted about the belief of the Anglican Church or Communion! [/quote]And one thing you can't get around -- the 39 Articles are a Protestant confession of faith, not a Catholic one. You have to look elsewhere to find Anglicanism's "Catholicity" -- namely, the threefold ministry, etc.[/quote] Rubbish! The 39 Articles are the result of Reformed catholics attempting to quell idiocy such as we read on some boards even to day. It was an attempt to keep the mad men within bounds, it was a mark in the sand beyond which the would be protestants or the anglo papists shouldn't pass! By the way as my mam used to say ,' your petty coat's showing" Your views on the threefold ministry, if I have read them aright show a contempt for Anglicanism which questions your reasons for using this board! Regarding the Anglican Position on most things I can only quote Paul's Ep, to the Ephesians 1v. 4-6.... There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all!
And one thing you can't get around -- the 39 Articles are a Protestant confession of faith, not a Catholic one. You have to look elsewhere to find Anglicanism's "Catholicity" -- namely, the threefold ministry, etc.[/quote] Rubbish! The 39 Articles are the result of Reformed catholics attempting to quell idiocy such as we read on some boards even to day. It was an attempt to keep the mad men within bounds, it was a mark in the sand beyond which the would be protestants or the anglo papists shouldn't pass! By the way as my mam used to say ,' your petty coat's showing" Your views on the threefold ministry, if I have read them aright show a contempt for Anglicanism which questions your reasons for using this board! Regarding the Anglican Position on most things I can only quote Paul's Ep, to the Ephesians 1v. 4-6.... There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all![/quote] As usual, you show that you have no clue what I believe. I realize that it is very difficult and perplexing for someone such as you to figure out someone such as I. I do not disparage the threefold ministry; I simply take the classical Anglican position that the historic episcopate is juts that -- a historic development, and it is thus for the benefit of the church, not of the essence of the church. It wouldn't make sense for me to disavow this ministry since I share in it, now would it? Contempt for Anglicanism? Really? Anglicanism is one of the four bodies that has influenced my theology. And since I had to read and agree with the AMiA constitution and doctrines before I could even join as a clergy Associate Member, this shows that I could not have contempt for Anglicanism! You really need to stop posting such false absurdity. Myabe I only have contempt for the version of Anglicanism presented by you -- but then that is not true either! I already explained my reasons for using this board elsewhere: love of theological discussion, desire for Christian fellowship, and a liking of Anglicanism and spiritual affinity with it. Too bad that you and some others would seem to not want me here. That makes me rather sad.
Celti1, you keep saying that you're going to have to take a "permanent vacation" from the Forum, but you never do. Are you being passive-aggressive about this? You're the only one who seems to want yourself to leave. Simply because some forum-posters disagree with your Christian-syncretism doesn't mean that we hate you or don't want your presence. At the very least, the mental sparring we engage in improves the minds of all.
I have never said that. People keep saying I am contemptuous of Anglicanism, calling me heretical, and questioning why I am here. Seems to me that's implying they wish I wasn't.
[quote="Celtic1, post: 11389, member: 1090"]I have never said that..[/quote] Actually you did, you mentioned taking time off of the forum and that it might be permanent. Not my wishes for you, but you did make the statement. I believe your post was removed by the moderator with the others making personal comments. Jeff
Actually you did, you mentioned taking time off of the forum and that it might be permanent. Not my wishes for you, but you did make the statement. I believe your post was removed by the moderator with the others making personal comments. Jeff[/quote] If I did and I misspoke, I am sorry. Seems my memory is not what it once was.
I have recently discovered about another early Methodist, an Anglican priest called William Grimshaw. He sounds such a character and such passion for the lost! This article gives a description of this rather rough evangelistic style There was an occasion when a group of teenagers had jostled some of the people on their way to a prayer meeting. They told Grimshaw about it. He dressed up, disguising himself as a youth and joined them. He inched the gang towards the door of the Prayer Meeting room and pushed them all into the cottage where it was taking place. He took out his horsewhip and chastised them, and then he fell on his knees and prayed for their souls. Many amazing conversions took place. A woman refused to go to church with her converted husband. One day this man forcefully dressed her in her Sunday best and he took a rod and he drove her the 6 miles to Haworth, "as men drive a beast to market and I went, cursing Grimshaw all the way." She was converted, and returned the next week going of her own accord. Grimshaw soon came to their farmhouse and returned regularly to preach. He was a direct preacher: "If you perish you perish with the sound of the gospel in your lugs. Some of your are worse than the very swine. You say nothing over your food while the pigs make sounds." Another quote when a prodigal returns - "Yonder he comes! Yonder he comes! Rag tag and bobtail he comes . . ." and the whole congregation turned to see the man coming in. He had a celestial eloquence, though unfortunately none of his sermons have survived. He was a 'Puritan on the warpath.'. http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?300 While I'm not about to copy Grimshaw's style I admire how serious he took preaching the gospel
wow, I am glad you are not copying his style SK, you have a wonderful style of your own bu i do agree, amazing how serious he took preaching the gospel!!