Anglican church finally splits

The Anglican church underlines its total irrelevance and incompatibility with the modern world by tearing itself apart because New Hampshire elected a gay priest.

Pathetic

Or encouraging self-destruction, depending on how you look at it.

The phrase "primates' council" conjures up some strange pictures.

You mean like these

The Anglican church was founded solely for Henry VIII to be allowed to screw loads of birds. Moral high ground they have not.

one very telling factor is that at the Global Anglican Future Conference which led ultimately led to this split, the conservative bishops were asked to support a motion condemning the murder and persecution of gay people and refused to. That underlines for me how full of hate these evil people are. Good riddance to them.

This is indeed a significant development and in my view a very unfortunate one, but as the article you reference states this is not a formal church "split":


The literalist/conservative/anti-gay group has chosen not to recognize Anglican (i.e., Episcopal) church authorities in the US and Canada. Interestingly, they do not take the same action against England, where the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has refused their demands to discipline Episcopal bishops in the US and Canada for certain pro-gay decisions. The saga will continue and also be played out among other "mainline" Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists).

Akinola accused Williams of apostacy. I don't think that there can be much doubt that he wants to see schism and is supported by at least 200 other bishops in that.

BTC: We would probably agree that this represents a significant step toward a schism. But in Anglican (also Catholic) parlance being a schismatic is a big no-no. Thus, one must wrap it in language of needing to "reform" or "purify" the corrupt bride of Christ who at last has shown a modicum of tolerance toward gays.

that's maybe how it used to be, but Akinola seems to see his role as expelling the corrupt part of the anglican church and presenting them as the schismatics departing from God's way.

Consecration of gay clergy?! I bet that's never happened before!

I find it fairly amusing to watch people who profess to 'lead' demonstrating their 'leadership' by failing to agree on an issue the population got straight (no pun intended) years ago and then going into a hissy rage, throwing their teddy, and storming off home, using an entirely backwards looking logic to justify their position. Pathetic.

a bit extreme...

Sorry but I think your whole statement is bollocks. Compatibility with the modern world doesn't mean shit. Unfortunately (for some people), the bible does say that homosexuality isn't acceptable. As far as I know, Christianity is based on the bible so its true that gay and priest are two words that don't actually belong together.

listen matey, the bible also says that you should be put to death if you curse your parents, that a man and his wife who have sex during menstruation should be exiled, that slavery is a good and proper activity and that trimmed beards are sinful. All within a few verses of the Levitical command, the only one that can unequivocally be seen as a condemnation of homosexuality. Actually it claims the eating of shellfish is an "abomination" and uses the same degree of language for that as it uses for homosexual sex.

It might also interest you to know that until 1200 there was no unanimity in the church over the status of homosexuality and there were actually marriage services in the Catholic church and the eastern right to unite two men and to unite two women and these explicitly invoked the guidance of Catholic saints who were gay lovers (St Cosmas and St Damien or St Sergius and St Bacchus) or lesbian lovers (St Perpetua and St Felicity).

So the position of "Christian" homophobes has little legitimate basis in either scripture or church history and is just a figleaf for their festering hate-filled views.

Yes, there are a lot of things in the Old Testament which Christians don't follow these days because when Jesus came, new laws were passed. Don't want to make myself sound totally stupid so I can't go quoting scriptures and stuff to back myself up because I'm at work and don't have my notes at my disposal.

I agree that loads of things in the Old Testament sound ridiculous to us now - eating Pork was also considered something terrible for example. But seriously, if you believe in the bible then it becomes clear (and its also in the New Testament) that homosexuality is condemed.

Don't think that I am against you/gay people in general because as I've stated several times before, I indulged in it a lot myself in the past and have loads of gay friends. Its just one of those things that you have to accept (something which I struggle to do myself).

So don't get shirty with me and think that I am one of these hate filled people - I just think that gay and priest in the same sentence is really hypocritical.

Total Bullshit.

let me stop you right now. I used to be a fundamentalist and have read the bible through a good few times myself. And I can tell you that the church's position on homosexuality is not scriptural despite all its protestations to the contrary. The New Testament references are mostly Pauline and the translations that conflate them with homosexuality only appear in English from the 16th century onwards. The actual Greek refers variously to temple prostitutes, transvestites and male rapists.


If you come onto a thread telling me that my opinions are "bollocks" don't be suprised if I get shrty back.

The Anglican church is going through a process that other more enlightened churches such as the Quakers already have done. They managed it previously over women's rights and slavery and I have no doubt they will manage it again over same sex love. But at the same time I reserve the right to condemn the bastards who hide behind religion to make the lives of gay people the world over miserable.

suggest you read John Boswell's "The Marriage of Likeness" or "Homosexuality, Christianity and Social Tolerance". Boswell was a conservative Catholic like yourself BB and a Yale professor when he conducted his research at the Vatican libraries leading to the publication of his two seminal works.

Sorry, I don't read heretics.

no you heard it wrong BB, Boswell is a HISTORIAN and one of the most eminent church historians of his generation. It does begin with an "H" - i'll give you that.

And here we are again, in one corner the gay rights overlord and in the other the arch enemy of anything remotely left of Genghis Khan.

Can you two just get a room?

I was really excited by this until I realised i was thinking of Gene Simmons

Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia might enlighten you.






Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

Religion is becoming more and more irrelevant to our modern society by the day. I love it.

that does seem to be his intention ...

When you make posts that are total bullshit, you should expect to be called on them.

right back at ya!

in any case, you didn't PROVE Boswell was wrong. You just posted obviously misunderstood snippets from his wikipedia entry. While Boswell is to be criticised for imposing a modern gay sensibility onto first century christians, he nevertheless uncovered very very substantial evidence that the pre-1200 church accomodated sexual behaviour and relationships that the modern church pretends have been condemned from time immemorial.

Again, Total Bullshit.

so nice to have the BB seal of approval. I think most reasonable people see your 'Total Bullshits" as evidence of the goddamned truth

I haven't seen any "evidence." Your assertions are just that, assertions to fit your warped opinions in support of a gay-rights agenda, and unsubstantiated.

I gave you two books to read. Both books are assiduously researched and copiously referenced. Read them and then tell me whether there is any "evidence"

At last Williams is challenging these bigots

You gave me nothing but Total Bullshit. You gave me books to read? Is that supposed to be my homework assignment or something? I told you I don't read heretics, nor quack, queer, revisionist historians. It is not necessary for me to read his crap since, he has already been refuted and discredited by his peers and your Queer Theologians. Nobody believes him, except you.

This seems to be very Anglican...ie. "Can't we just agree to disagree?" What is he trying to say here? "Let's modify the truth to make everybody happy",? Williams just undermines whatever authority he claims to have by making such statements.


The whole Church of England and the Anglican Communion is already a Protestant Sect.

Anglican bishops in secret Vatican summit



The disclosure comes on the eve of a critical vote as members of the General Synod – the Church's parliament – prepare to decide whether to allow women to be bishops without giving concessions to staunch opponents.


Archbishop of Canterbury

...and it gets worse...

Gay Anglican vicars embroil the Queen in new controversy over homosexuality


The leaders of the Anglican church have no jurisdiction over Westminster Abbey which is unusual among churches in England in being a "Royal Peculiar". It is under the jurisdiction of the Crown.

Nature notes: Bearded tit

look Badbob there is less controversy about this within the English church than outside of the UK. The wierdy extremists are mostly in Africa, South America, Australia and some dioceses in the USA. And who cares what the Catholics think? Anglicans are Protestant after all.

And the Queen? She has at present several known homosexuals in her close service anmong the senior serving staff at Windsor and Buck House and as the Rev Cowell has served as priest-vicar leading services for 10 years at Westminster Abbey for TEN YEARS as an openly gay priest. You'd think if the queen had had a problem with that she would have spoken up sooner.

Still a fucking cool idea. Although, if he'd really been on his toes he'd have slipped in polygamy.

Religion: making tits of the bearded and unbearded. Edit: and BadBob

oh and BB, a little lesson in Anglicanism: the Queen IS the head of the Church of England.

err no they aren't, not really. In fact many Anglicans regard the church to be closer to the Roman Catholics than the protestant churches.

There are many, maybe even a majority within the CofE that were apalled by overtures towards Rome. A few parishes with bells and smells does not make Cranmer's church Roman Catholic however much the dwindling anglocatholics might want that.

Apparently, a lot of Anglicans.

i would say the vast majority of the church considers itself to be catholic, just not papal. And just because you consider yourself catholic doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the Roman Catholic church says. Afterall, they don't necessarily teach today what they tought 1,000 years ago.

edit: Also the Anglican communion includes some of the churches called the "Old Catholics" or Alt-Katholiken". They certainly aren't protestant.

And is Catholic or catholic meant?

catholic
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

Catholic
1. of or pertaining to a Catholic church, esp. the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Theology.
a. (among Roman Catholics) claiming to possess exclusively the notes or characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by the Church of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and to their faith and organization; often qualified, especially by those not acknowledging these claims, by prefixing the word Roman.
b. (among Anglo-Catholics) noting or pertaining to the conception of the church as the body representing the ancient undivided Christian witness, comprising all the orthodox churches that have kept the apostolic succession of bishops, and including the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Sweden, the Old Catholic Church (in the Netherlands and elsewhere), etc.
3. pertaining to the Western Church.
–noun
4. a member of a Catholic church, esp. of the Roman Catholic Church.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

as my post above says, the CoE considers itself to be the continuation of the Catholic church but without the pope, thus it is not Roman Catholic. Protestant Churches do not consider themselves Catholic at all, they consider themselves Evangelical.

Although, High Church Anglicans do regard themselves to be closer to RC than other protestant groups...that much is true...they are obviously still not Catholic. There are major differences between how they regard themselves and the Roman Catholic Church regards them.

I would challenge your statement that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach what they taught 1,000 years ago. "Old Catholics" or "Alt-Katholiken" are heretics because they do not accept the teaching of Vatican I.