I am saddened that you'd rather state and re-state your privately held opinions, than support them by facts and engage in meaningful discourse with those around you. I hope that it is clear by now that almost nobody around here supports most things that you hold. So you best be prepared to argue everything you do using proof, or not at all. Alright let's try this then: why don't you cite the precise legal bill, or the specific statute from the English common law, in which Henry formally secedes from Rome. The Anglican church came into being when Joseph of Arimathea started ordaining and consecrating the first clergy on English soil.
There are more than two orthodox bishops in TEC. There are twelve diocesan bishops and other suffragans and retired bishops. Jesus seems to have thought twelve bishops was enough, it's enough for me.
I think that I read somewhere that within Episcopal churches, a fixed percent of the congregational giving is sent to the diocese. I do not know what this percent is. And I do not know what the Episcopal position is on restricted giving. In many protestant denominations, however, the local church makes the decision about giving to the national programs. This is illustrated in that some churches support their missionaries through some kind of cooperative giving at a national level, while in other independent-type churches missionaries must visit individual churches and mail support letters to individual families to receive their support, which is then turned over to some independent mission agency until the missionary family has raised enough for the time in the field (three years or so). Some families and individuals put their religious and charitable giving funds in a separate checking account and pay their tithes, offerings, and special giving from this separate account. I did this myself several years ago when I was active in an independent church. Every week we had different missionaries and ministries visiting the church asking for support. I actually had "Tithe Account" written at the top of the printed checks above my name. I hope this helps.
Quite ridiculous. The English church prior to Henry and Cranmer was Roman Catholic in allegiance and doctrine; after them, it was not. When Edward became king, Cranmer promoted major reforms that moved the English church in the direction of the Magisterial Reformers. I suggest you arm yourself with historical facts instead of conjecture and partisan propaganda if you want to debate church history with me because I do know what I am talking about. Again, for those who do not wish to consult scholarly resources, a simple internet search will suffice to prove that what I have posted are indeed the facts. I am aware that partisanship and human nature prevents most people from being able to be objective about facts, but I do not suffer from that limitation. I have always been able to search for facts, and, having found them, to state them even if they contradict my personal preferences.
Could you state the twelve diocesan bishops whom you consider to be orthodox?And then I have an interesting question and some information I'd like you to read and comment on.
Yes, good post and good information again. I know that in Baptists churches, anything given beyond the local church is strictly voluntary, and the amount is up to that local congregation -- this is the result of their belief in local church autonomy. In fact, no association of churches nor the denomination can impose anything on a local church that it does not choose to accept -- doctrinally or otherwise.
All of the bishops on this list: http://www.communionpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/CP-Bishops-Web-List.pdf Plus Western Lousiana and Eau Claire.
I would like you good folks here to read this article and tell me if you think this man had valid reasons for what he ultimately decided. Does his rationale make logical sense to you? http://www.rsanders.org/Why I Left.htm
I won't read past the part where he says it was God's will for him to leave. Schism is never mandated by God, quite the opposite, in fact.
I see that Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi is not on there. I would like your, and others', reaction to the following that Bishop Gray said in a speech at the 185th Annual Council Bishop's Address back in February of this year. He will not authorize a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions, but he stated this in reference to the upcoming General Convention: "But clearly the most attention, in and outside of the church, will be given to a proposal from the Standing Liturgical Commission that offers a particular and specific liturgy for the blessing of same gender relationships. It is my sense that, General Convention, with some amendments or conditions, will approve an authorized liturgy for the blessing of same gender relationships for use in the church. This, of course, is not new to this General Convention. Indeed, for decades in our church, liturgical blessings of monogamous, lifelong relationships have taken place in certain dioceses under certain conditions with the approval of the diocesan bishop. Indeed, my own intellectual, spiritual and psychological journey to understand the realities of these committed relationships began in earnest while I was rector in Oxford when I was asked by a number of those couples (one of whom had their relationship blessed by an Episcopal priest) to help them work through problems in their relationships. And so, since 1986 when I was first approached for help, I have sought to find ways to support monogamous lifelong commitments made by same gendered persons – relationships that in their best moments can be vehicles of devotion, love and grace. As a bishop, I have tried to offer that support in a variety of ways, both institutionally and at more personal levels. Most recently, I have invited the Right Reverend Mary Glasspool, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles, to be the leader of the Spiritual Renewal weekend at Gray Center in August. This annual event is open to all, but it began and continues today as a spiritual resource for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons in this and surrounding dioceses. Mary grew up in a clergy family like I did, was enormously helpful to us post-Katrina as a canon in the Diocese of Maryland, is a trusted colleague in the House of Bishops and is in a committed lifelong relationship with her life partner. Having said all that, it probably will surprise some of you, when I say, I have not been willing to authorize liturgical rites of blessing as part of that support. I recognize to many that this refusal appears to give lie to my professed pastoral care and concern. That perception is a burden I have chosen to bear since I became your bishop. In lighter moments, I prefer to think of myself as a walking paradox. Despite what General Convention may do, I am still not prepared to authorize such blessings in this diocese. My reasons are two fold: First, despite our best efforts to make clear the subtle, but significant differences, these rites of blessing will be perceived both in the church and outside, as the sacramental rite of marriage. I am not prepared to make such a perceived change in the sacramental life of the church. Secondly, our Archbishop of Canterbury has asked that for the sake of the wider church, our Episcopal Church refrain from this authorization. Though I am not required by any canon to abide by his request, I have chosen to do so out of my deep devotion to this “One Church” we celebrate this weekend. My differences with many of you, and with much of the wider church on matters of theology and sexual ethics has been known for a decade or more. I believe that they do not even come close to being “deal breakers.” They are simply differences between good and decent people seeking to be faithful in their lives and in the witness of Christ’s Church in a very confusing and complex time. And so it is, in a season that will undoubtedly witness the unprecedented shrillness of our election campaigns, we, in this church will talk, pray and listen to each other. And we will assume a love of the Lord and the best of motives in those with whom we disagree. The way we disagree can be a radical countercultural witness to our society."
Not particularly, he explains himself rather thoroughly. He's for exploring some manner of blessing same-sex relationships but wants to make sure that is not confused with holy matrimony, which is his first reason. Secondly, he respects the Anglican Communion enough to not do what the vast majority of the Communion has condemned.
Yes, I could see that, but I was trying to figure out the underlying "why" of his stances and actions. So, it seems to me that he is actually in favor of homosexual marriage and same-sex blessings (and most likely homosexual ordinations, as well), but he won't personally authorize such because of unity issues. My question is, how could any orthodox Episcopalian support such a bishop?
He absolutely did not say that. He merely said that one of the reasons he would not authorize a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions is because such might be mistaken for same-sex marriage. That is not equivalent to saying that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. Read what he said, in the part I put in italics, about same-sex unions -- that these are "relationships that in their best moments can be vehicles of devotion, love and grace." That certainly isn't a statement upholding traditional morality! It is not a condemnation of homosexual sex; it is an affirmation of it! It is not a statement that affirms sex only within heterosexual marriage! How is this not an abandonment of the Christian faith?
Whilst Tom More died, he couldn't have done so because of England's separation from the Roman Catholic Church, because there wasn't one at that time. There was a ,'particular church, ' known as the Suburbicarian Church of Rome, which covered all Italy and parts of Bohemia, perhaps. But the Roman catholic Church didn't evolve till after the Council of Trent in 1565! At Trent the name ,'Holy Roman Church,' was made officially the name of the new sect, it continues today as such.What More died for was most likely for opposing the King! Thomas More wrote many letters showing his position regarding Rome! One to Henry concerning his publication concerning the Lutherans, warned the King, not to give to much to the pope, lest he live to regret it, which Henry did in time! Another most telling one was to the man Crumwell on 5th, of March 1534. "As for the general councils assembled lawfully.....the authority thereof ought to be taken for undoubtable , or else were there nothing no certainty .....For albeit that I have for mine own part such opinion of the pope's primacy as I have showed you, yet never thought I the pope above the General Councils." Hey D. Church of England in the Later Middle Ages. Vol.3. pg 67. History. Feb. 1968. What More was worried over was the truly frightening issue of the Church in England being nationalised. The Convocation, however, before granting the title added a caveat,'As far as the Law of Christ allows.' Brave men. In 1536 Henry VIII, suffered an injury in a joust that left him mentally impaired, or so it would seem. There has been some work done on this, but it seems that the possibility of the country being run by an imbecile, is to much for the establishment! Though there have been TV, programmes on the BBC, at least two on the subject! As far back as the 17th, Cent, in a book written by a Church Historian,' Eccesiastical History of England', mention is made of an unsigned letter in the private correspondence of Eliza, the Queen. It paints an astonishing picture of the old monarch! The letter is thought to be from a cousin of Elizabeth.
First of all that doesn't change the most important aspect: namely that the bishops who were there before the Reformation stayed there after. The clergy who were there, stayed after. The church reformed its theology, sure, but it was the same church, before and after. As Anglican theologians said in the 18th century: to the question of, "Where was your Church before the Reformation?" the answer is, "Where was your face before you washed it this morning?" Secondly, the theology of pre-Reformation English church in many ways strongly differed from Continental Romanism. Many English theologians rejected transubstantiation, for which the Pope had to send multiple Cardinals into England to sort out what was going on. Additionally many English clergymen rejected Papal supremacy, and you can read this very opinion for example in the History of Venerable Bede. It is not well known that this famous historian recorded the English rejections of Papal legates and the very theology of Papal supremacy, and that he himself agreed with those opinions. He wrote that it were a superstition to be a subject to the Pope. And finally, the first great reformers, such as Wycliffe, (150 years prior to Luther) were English.
This has been one of the worst lies ever been perpetrated in history. When Cardinal Pole was sent as Papal Legate to England in 1553 to reconcile the Church of England to Rome, he did so without hesitation. Bishops and priests were deposed on the charge of "heresy", but none were ever told that their Apostolic Succession or Orders were in question. Pole officially delivered the Papal pronouncement that all "Ecclesiastical Sins" were forgiven, and that the Church of England, pre-1533, post-1533, and post-1553, was a True Church. The Church never came into being in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy; it was simply recognizing and restoring what Constantine, Justinian, and many English monarchs had done for centuries. Even if a New Church was created in 1534, Pole's reconciliation to Rome in 1554 recognized it as a true church. When Elizabeth restored true religion and virtue to the land in 1560, the Pope did not sever Communion. The fact that Pius V felt the need to excommunicate England in 1570 means that England had been in the Catholic Communion prior to that. You don't excommunicate non-churches. The Nag's Head fable slandering English Orders was made-up in 1600. None of the ancient propaganda against Anglicanism is true. We are and always have been a true and glorious shining Church of Christ.