Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 02/18/2007 5:09:43 PM PST by kalee
That must make the liberal ECUSA tremble in its boots.
Exactly the words my mother used.
wow. is it just me or does it feel like something is really happening in the times we live in.
The ELCA is the Lutheran synod who signed all the paperwork with the ECUSA. They are far from conservative, and would probably try to spin it all sorts of ways.
Henry VIII started turning in his grave when we started using English for the services, allowing married priests and distributing Communion in both kinds (innovations he did not allow while he was alive).
Of course the gay clergy probably have turned him into a contortionist.
You raise a good point. While Anglicanism is known to have plenty of Rome-aphiles, it also has plenty of Geneva-philes who, though they might be happy with the thought of stronger and more positive relations with Rome, would not be willing to give up their strong Reformed ideals of church governance.
Churches must grow together from the bottom up; they cannot be stitched together from the top down. The last 50 years has seen a lot of progress in this regard, and the last decade has seen unprecedented cooperation between Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals in confronting social issues. Still, many Catholics and Anglicans have been raised to see each other as sort of an enemy- that must be bred out first.
In the furtherance of the new ecumenical spirit, might I suggest that all living descendants of Henry VIII be rounded up and summarily executed, or at least incarcerated in the Tower of London. In the absence of the monarchy, the Roman Pontiff would then assume supreme power in the UK following a public declaration of obedience by Tony Blair. New Crusades should then be launched against Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds, the East End of London and other hotbeds of Islamic resistance.
Viva Christo Rei!! Viva il Papa!!!
I'm not discussing this with you. I don't like your tone or your questions.
This is why I don't bother going on the religious threads.
Please excuse the brief reply. (I am boarding a flight). Wikepedia has an article on the continuing Anglican Church(es) that will provide a reasonably good answer to your question. Sionnsar and I both belong to continuing churches (APKC and ACC are examples.) You can also search on the Anglican Catholic Church website which provides a good general history.
If S is near his computer, he may be able to add to this.
Edmund Campion is smiling in Heaven.
What exactly is a "Continuing Church"? I'm unfamiliar with the phrase.
But I do have to wonder about this: if a person gets a divorce and remarries, by that very fact isn't he or she saying that they didn't consider the first marriage binding?
And that's exactly what an annulment, if granted, would affirm: that the first marriage was, from a sacramental point of view, null, i.e. not binding.
So why would it be insulting for the Church to examine the circumstances and then agree with the divorced partners?
Not to worry. Over here in the Continuing churches we're keeping it alive. (The good one, that is -- the 1928.)
Just by being together a long time and producing children, people are not thereby married in a Sacramental sense. I think almost everyone understands this. If this were so, then every marriage (including non-Catholic, non-Christian, Mormon, Muslim, atheist, whatever) would be considered as having participated in a Catholic Sacrament, subject to Catholic canon law, which is obviously untrue.
An annulment is not a determination that a couple is not married "in any sense" --- just that their vows were not binding in a Sacramental sense. Almost everybody who goes through a church ceremony in this country is also married civilly, in the eyes of the State. So there is no question of their children's legitimacy; and in any case, "illegitimacy" does not exist as a Catholic concept; it is a secular concept.
Surely the RC Church has a right to define its own Sacraments; and the RCC holds that for a Sacramental marriage to exist, there must be valid, binding vows. If the vows were absent or defective in a serious sense (because of, e.g., immaturity, mental reservation, fraud, coercion, or ignorance of what the vows entail) then the vows are defective = null = not binding.
See also 56. That all seems reasonable to me.
I'm sorry. I don't agree with that at all.
For instance, if a man abandons his family and sues or divorce, it doesn't mean the woman had not considered the marriage binding. And to say so to satisfy the church is to be untruthful.
What are known as the Continuing churches were mostly formed in a mass departure from PECUSA in 1977, over several issues including (best-known) the ordination of women and the new prayer book. The founding document is The Affirmation of St. Louis, and you will see the term therein.
Most definitions of the Continuing churches somewhat incorrectly also include the Reformed Episcopal Church, a group that left PECUSA in the late 1800s -- yet that church and a "real" Continuing church, the APA, are in the process of merging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.