Anglican Split Feared as Gay Bishop Is Consecrated (Can you say apostacy?)

wbur.org ^

[Elsie]

How Does a godless heathen like you KNOW what's not cool?

Hey!

I used to be a 'godless heathen', too!

[Elsie]

Hey Elsie, we're sympatico!

God's Word does have a unifying effect among differing peoples, doesn't it!

---

Something about the Truth setting us free, I think........

[Elsie]

It looks like a bunch (flock, herd, gaggle, convention, pride) of them are trying that Shakespere thingy.........

[Held_to_Ransom]

While at the England meeting, a conservative Episcopal priest I know of some political import in this affair spent some time in Rome for talks there. Not for nothing, but most of the issues going back to Henry the VIII are pretty cool these days, but abortion, which long remained a major stumbling block between the 'modern' Anglican Church and Rome doesn't present the same divide with the conservative Anglican church. Now, if they end the business of gay priests, we could well see a remarkable warming between conservative Anglicans and the Vatican.

PS. My grandfather was an Episcopal priest and when once his parish hired a gay curate. It wasn't known at the time the lad was hired, but it came to light in about two months. It was simply announced the next service that the new curate had resigned due to illness and that was that.

[Held_to_Ransom]

That vestment looks like a clown suit to me. I wonder why?

[Held_to_Ransom]

Okay, so what you believe is that the Anglican Church existed, was Romanized around the fourth century and then DE-Romanized about a thousand years later by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Interesting historical perspective. What history books do you draw this information from?

You are just looking at it from a Vatican-centric viewpoint. According to them. That has never been an absolute opinion in England. One might well argue too that the line of the papacy is inconsistant for political reasons and be correct. In point of fact though, England was never completely Romanized, though never from lack of trying.

[Redleg Duke]

Thanks for the insight.

[TradicalRC]

Henry VIII was quite cozy with the Vatican before he sought annulment. Prior to that he was granted the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope. Why would that be if they did not recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?

[Held_to_Ransom]

Henry VIII was quite cozy with the Vatican before he sought annulment. Prior to that he was granted the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope. Why would that be if they did not recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?

Are you raising the dim and barely perceived notion that somewhere once lived an Englishman who wasn't totally and completely honest? Perish the thought!

[csconerd]

Funny, how the closet pedophiles are more acceptable than someone openly gay in the priesthood. I don't agree with either, but if a sinner can't be priest/pastor/preacher/bishop/whatever, there will be none.

[TexasCajun]

The media continues to portray homosexual men as 'gay', loving, sweet, kind, girl-boy types that love dressing up and doing girly things, but never address the disgusting sex acts they do nor the diseases they propagate.

The media is complicit in the homosexual recruitment of our impressionable youth.

[TradicalRC]

Actually, the notion I am putting forth is that the Anglican Church's existence prior to The Roman Catholic Church is essentially laughable.
St. Thomas More would most likely agree with me. He too, was a defender of the primacy of the Pope.

[pctech]

Is that what I said? No, what I am saying is this: The Roman Catholic persecuted the christians throughout the known world (at that time). Just read Fox's Book of Martyrs, and be prepared to have a vomit bad ready. You'll need it when you read what the catholic church did to those who wouldn't bow down to their "rule."

[Held_to_Ransom]

Actually, the notion I am putting forth is that the Anglican Church's existence prior to The Roman Catholic Church is essentially laughable.

It's not polite to laugh. Given the current behaviour of the Anglican Church, it may well have existed long before the Catholic Church.

St. Thomas More would most likely agree with me. He too, was a defender of the primacy of the Pope

Of course. All one sided views of history contain much agreement with themselves. If you set the criteria to something similar to the way Isreal looks at property deeds, then you can't lose. Can you call Christ a Christian?

[Campion]

Just read Fox's Book of Martyrs, and be prepared to have a vomit bad ready.

One-sided 16th Century polemic isn't history. It's just polemic. You would do well to read history written by both sides, and by people on no side at all.

Plenty of those "christians" you admire killed Catholics with the same vigor with which you'd step on a cockroach. The Elizabethan England John Foxe called home murdered hundreds of priests. They killed pregnant Margaret Clitherow by crushing her under rocks. Her crime was giving a priest a place to spend the night.

[pctech]

It's history, and evidently it's history you want to ignore. I worked for Dominican priest who admitted to what the catholic church did. You best get your head out of the sand....

[Campion]

It's history, and evidently it's history you want to ignore.

You won't find any reputable historians today who consider Foxe to be anything more than a polemicist. None.

I really don't care if you worked for the Pope himself, BTW.

Too bad you're afraid of the truth.

[pctech]

man, you're a fiesty one. And yes you will find historians who will back the book. You still haven't taken your head out of the sand. And it looks like you're the one who's afraid of the truth.

[Campion]

And yes you will find historians who will back the book

Name just one.

Yeah, I'm "fiesty". I don't appreciate lies being told about my faith, and I don't appreciate the devil using those lies to send souls to hell.

[pctech]

well it's unfortunate but your "faith" has sent millions to heaven through their persecutions, and millions to hell through their "religion." But we can go on for hours or even days arguing back and forth and neither of us will change our minds about what we think.

Far as I see, If you can't believe a dominican priest, who can you believe?