Anglicans 'expel' Canada (and also the openly apostate U.S. Episcopal Church!)

Anglicans 'expel' Canada
Clergy barred from key bodies over gay marriage

Bob Harvey; with files from Natalie Alcoba
CanWest News Service, with files from The Daily Telegraph

NATIONAL POST
Thursday, June 23, 2005

The fierce battle within the Anglican Church over homosexual clergy and same-sex marriage has brought the Canadian and American branches of the faith to the brink of banishment by the Church's ruling bodies meeting in England.

The controversy flared up at the Anglican Consultative Council session in Nottingham yesterday, pitting the liberal, pro-homosexual Canadian and American congregations against a hardline coalition of African and Asian wings that bitterly opposes homosexual involvement in Church affairs.

At the root of the dispute is the consecration of openly gay clergyman Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the decision by the diocese of New Westminster, B.C., to authorize the blessing of same-sex marriage.

The same-sex confrontation in the Church comes as the Parliament of Canada is locked in an equally bitter showdown over government legislation that would make Canada only the third nation in the world to legalize formal same-sex marriage.

Yesterday the Consultative Council rejected the North American rationale for homosexual participation in Church affairs and voted to banish both Canada and the U.S. from the council and its central finance and standing committees.

A watered down resolution that stopped short of demanding North American banishment from all Church bodies, requested "that the Episcopal Church [U.S.] and the Anglican Church of Canada withdraw their members from the council's standing committee and the inter-Anglican finance and administration committee."

The resolution passed 30-28 in a secret ballot, with four abstentions, behind the closed doors of the council's session at the University of Nottingham.

Although somewhat milder than the original version, The Times of London noted "it amounts in effect to a punishing expulsion."

"If there was any doubt left about the serious nature of this rift, this week's meeting has made clear how far from agreement both sides appear to be, and the extent to which neither is willing to compromise," said The Times. "The deepening anger on both sides means the 2008 conference in Canterbury could see savage theological conflict."

The newspaper added that the events of the week moved the Church "closer to schism."

The Church's official policy declares homosexuality "incompatible with scripture."

The Canadian and U.S. branches of the Church had already agreed to refrain from participation in the governing council until 2008.

Nigeria's Archbishop Peter Akinola has been the loudest of the Asian and African critics of the North American churches and submitted yesterday's resolution. Both U.S. and Canadian leaders came to this week's council meetings to explain why they had taken stands that marred their relationships with sister churches.

However, Canadian delegates, including the church's primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, refused to drop their support of the blessing of same-sex unions in Vancouver.

Reverend Peter Elliott, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver and the deputy chairman of the Canadian church's governing body, its General Synod, told the Consultative Council on Tuesday, "I am a gay man. I am in a committed partnership myself."

He said he is able to hold such a visible position in the Church because of the support of his partner, his family, his bishop and his diocese.

In a letter to the international Anglican Consultative Council, Archbishop Hutchison expressed regret over strained relationships with other Anglicans and agreed that until Canada's General Synod meets in 2007, there will be a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions.

The Canadian delegation told the meeting in Nottingham that the Church exists in a social, cultural and political context where seven of 10 provinces have already authorized same-sex marriages. But Bishop Sue Moxley of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island said that despite their differences, Canadian leaders continue to see themselves as part of the worldwide Church.

The Right Reverend Catherine Roskam, the suffragan bishop of New York, called on other Anglican churches to learn to live with different approaches to sexuality. In a 130-page document, the U.S. Episcopal Church argued that its members have found holiness in same-sex relationships and have come to support the blessing of such unions and the ordination of homosexuals.

Charlie Masters, national director for Anglican Essentials Canada, a group that represents conservative Anglicans, welcomed yesterday's decision, calling it an opportunity for the Canadian church to change its direction.

"It shows that the Anglican communion is strong in its resolve to call the Anglican Church back to Anglican beliefs," he said.

The meeting of delegates from the 38 Anglican churches will continue until June 28. National churches must then decide whether to accept or reject any decisions made at the meetings.

© National Post 2005

"Come home to Rome. You'll be glad you did."

As an Anglican (my VERY conservative Episcopal church was kicked out by our pathetic liberal Bishop and joined the Anglican church directly --- search "Episcopal" here on freep and read about Midland, TX), there would be serious theological difficulties "re-joining" the Roman church, in no small part:

1. Despite recent pronouncements of concilitory nature, Anglicans reject the continuing virginity of Mary as contrary to scripture (and pretty much everything else added around Mary ---- she was blessed above all woman, all right, mother of Jesus, but just a woman. Also, per black letter scriputre, only Jesus was sinless.

Obviously, you disagree on this point. Wars have been fought on this issue, and we won't change each others' minds. The point is: there is little or no middle ground on Mary. (Other than to say: it doesn't matter --- we agree Jesus is the Lord. How He got there is not essential to salvation.)

2. Anglicans reject RC traditions (for some RC) like praying for the dead to get them out of Purgatory. Indeed, they generally reject the idea of Purgatory altogether as without scriptural basis.

Again, little middle ground, other than I think a lot of R.C. theologians are coming to the conclusion that Purgatory concept was created with the good intention of preventing people from thinking Salvation was License to sin.

3. To Anglicans, every Christian is a "saint." Capital-letter "Saints" are really good Christians whose example we should follow: e.g., from Rite I, " . . follow the example of St. X . . . and all your saints, etc, but one does not pray to them or seek intervention from them. Anglicans pray directly to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

Finally, remember, while Anglicans were technically part of the RC church starting fairly early, the Anglican church got started on its own --- its chief core being the Celtic Church (allegedly founded by Joseph of Aramathia).

Even while part of the RC, it was a rebel --- with a distinctly different structure (married friars being one example and monks being the other). It was very populist and democratic. Its bishops bucked Rome early and often --- doing things like printing the Bible in English, for example, and teaching people the Bible directly, instead of filtered by Catchesim.

The oft-told story of Henry VIII creating a church to satisfy his lusts is baloney. Henry VIII co-opted an existing movement (for his own purposes, certainly).

Long and short, until Christ comes back and unifies the Universal Church --- fixing the problems with ALL of the flawed human denominations (be they Roman, Anglican, or Southern Baptist) --- reuninification ain't gonna happen.

As said, we will never agree on this issue, but consider the following:

There are a number of passages in the New Testament that argue against the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Note the following:

Matthew affirms that Mary was found to be with child “before [she and Joseph] came together” (Mt. 1:18). The term “came together” (from sunerchomai) includes the idea of sexual intimacy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; see Danker, 970). The implication clearly is that ultimately, they “came together.” H.L. Ellison comments that the construction is “incompatible with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1188).

Matthew declares that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “until [heos hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25). While the expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1.42). There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.

In Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” child. While the term prototokon does not demand unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally suggests” that she did (Geldenhuys, 103). If the sustained virginity of Mary is such a crucial theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth her “only” son? That certainly would have settled the issue.

There are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus (Mt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholic apologists appeal to the fact that the term “brother” (adelphos) is sometimes used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., “cousins.” While adelphos (which literally means, “out of the same womb”) is employed loosely on occasion in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used for a “cousin.” The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf. Col. 4:10).
Moreover, Jesus is said to have had “sisters” (Mt. 13:56 - adelphe). Why should it be assumed that Matthew’s use of “mother” was literal, but that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” were used figuratively? If “sister” is literal in Acts 23:16 (Paul’s sister), what would compel one to view the same term in a different sense in Matthew 13:56? Terry notes: “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity” (159).

The alleged perpetual celibate state of Joseph and Mary’s relationship is contrary to the divine ideal. Marriage, as designed by God, was intended to bring a man and woman together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:5-6). Subsequent to the initial physical bonding is the responsibility to “render” to one another what is “due” – these terms expressing a sacred obligation (1 Cor. 7:3). If there is to be abstinence, it is to be by mutual concession, and that only temporarily (v. 5).

Moreover, many scholars have opioned that the "perpetual virginity" theory had its roots in the pagan environment of the post-apostolic age when there was a strong emphasis upon celibacy within certain heathen religions. In that day, sexual intercourse, even within marriage, sometimes carried the suspicion of sin.

In fact, Alexander Hislop has shown a remarkable concurrence between the Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome, and the propensity for virginity that evolved in the digressive church of the post-apostolic period (Hislop, 223, 236-238, 250).

Most suspect, that the Roman Church was attempting to accommodate “Christianity” to paganism, in order to provide a “comfort zone” that would attract the heathen to the religion of Christ. This is an historical reality that not even Catholic scholars deny (see Attwater, 363). For an historical survey of this phenomenon, see Edward Gibbon’s famous work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter XXVIII). Gibbon concludes this chapter with these words:

“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity” (II.70).

Re: “There are a number of passages in the New Testament that argue against the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Note the following: Matthew affirms that Mary was found to be with child “before [she and Joseph] came together” (Mt. 1:18). The term “came together” (from sunerchomai) includes the idea of sexual intimacy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; see Danker, 970). The implication clearly is that ultimately, they “came together.” H.L. Ellison comments that the construction is “incompatible with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1188). “

He is wrong. It is totally inconclusive. I could say “you and I got along until now” and by this theory it would mean from this point forward we can not get along but that is not necessarily true. It is a turn of phrase nothing more. This is a case of reading more into the passage then the passage justifies. It by itself does not prevent your view point but nor does it justify it either.

Re: “Matthew declares that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “until [heos hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25). While the expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1.42). There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.”

The same applies here. The Evangelist is establishing the fulfillment of an Old Testament Prophecy. One could wish for more details but they may not have thought it necessary since the early Church relied on the spoken word more than the written. There was an understanding among the early Church Fathers that may have made the need for all details to be documented seem unnecessary. Books were rare and almost never used by the illiterate laity, most of whom where slaves, peasants or low ranking solders. The Scriptures were largely used by the literate priests who no doubt read them with the guidance of their superiors. Far too often people approach Scripture with a modern approach without ever considering the conditions which they were written.

Re: In Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” child. While the term prototokon does not demand unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally suggests” that she did (Geldenhuys, 103). If the sustained virginity of Mary is such a crucial theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth her “only” son? That certainly would have settled the issue.”

Again the use of First born would have been necessary to establish a prophetic link. For centuries the Hebrews dedicated their firstborn (if a male child) as commanded of them in the desert during the Exodus. Every faithful Jewish woman would have done so and referred to the child as her firstborn even if the child was their only child. The Two turtle doves were also predicted and were meant to be a sign for the faithful that THIS CHILD was the Redeemer. The Evangelist was providing the proof of this and could not do so with other words. They were part of the ceremony and the prophecy.
Re: “There are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus (Mt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholic apologists appeal to the fact that the term “brother” (adelphos) is sometimes used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., “cousins.” While adelphos (which literally means, “out of the same womb”) is employed loosely on occasion in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used for a “cousin.” The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf. Col. 4:10). Moreover, Jesus is said to have had “sisters” (Mt. 13:56 - adelphe). Why should it be assumed that Matthew’s use of “mother” was literal, but that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” were used figuratively? If “sister” is literal in Acts 23:16 (Paul’s sister), what would compel one to view the same term in a different sense in Matthew 13:56? Terry notes: “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity” (159).”

As to the original words in the Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew texts I am forced, like most, to rely on those who have the training. And there are others with the training who dispute the above. If you have that sort of training in ancient languages please let us all know. Until then I have to rely on experts that say the opposite of the above. I do know Abraham refers to Lot as his brother when another part of the Bible it is clear they are Uncle and Nephew. Also Isaac is sent away by his mother to HER brother’s house but when Isaac gets there he refers to his Uncle as HIS brother. This is a common practice in the Old Testament and is still a common practice in the Middle East today. Besides the simple evidence that almost every single Protestant Founder and theologian held the view Mary remained a virgin until death is an overwhelming body of evidence. The shear recent nature of this theory is cause for skepticism. The 20th century has been a disaster for faith and I just do not trust modern Biblical scholarship. Too much agenda and too little substance. IF there were a few more theologians from earlier eras that held your view it would still be an unresolved issue at best but as it is the body of scholars Catholic and Protestant are against you.

Re: “The alleged perpetual celibate state of Joseph and Mary’s relationship is contrary to the divine ideal. Marriage, as designed by God, was intended to bring a man and woman together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:5-6). Subsequent to the initial physical bonding is the responsibility to “render” to one another what is “due” – these terms expressing a sacred obligation (1 Cor. 7:3). If there is to be abstinence, it is to be by mutual concession, and that only temporarily (v. 5).”

Matthew 19:12 Christ speaks on the most holy and desired state of life for the faithful. Saint Paul says the same. I will let Christ’s words refute your position:

Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”

There is nothing wrong with marriage and sex within the bond of matrimony but there is a higher calling for those who can bear it.

Re: “Moreover, many scholars have opioned that the "perpetual virginity" theory had its roots in the pagan environment of the post-apostolic age when there was a strong emphasis upon celibacy within certain heathen religions. In that day, sexual intercourse, even within marriage, sometimes carried the suspicion of sin. In fact, Alexander Hislop has shown a remarkable concurrence between the Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome, and the propensity for virginity that evolved in the digressive church of the post-apostolic period (Hislop, 223, 236-238, 250). Most suspect, that the Roman Church was attempting to accommodate “Christianity” to paganism, in order to provide a “comfort zone” that would attract the heathen to the religion of Christ. This is an historical reality that not even Catholic scholars deny (see Attwater, 363). For an historical survey of this phenomenon, see Edward Gibbon’s famous work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter XXVIII). Gibbon concludes this chapter with these words: “The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity” (II.70).”

Gibbons was not a theologian and was not a fan of the RCC as was true of most Englishmen of his day. Nothing like a good slander (pagan rituals in the Catholic Church) to undermine the opposition. There is evidence the Jews had sects that practiced celibacy and the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls are one example yet the detractors of the Church only noticed the practice in pagan societies. Funny they should do so, evidence of an agenda? Was not Saint Paul and his words not enough or is the intention to include Saint Paul among those who looked to pagan practices for guidance? These opinions are not very convincing and highly suspect IMHO.

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.