A Catholic's View
Johnny J
the pedophile scandal we should not throw stones,but.Human nature is
strong.
You have to admit that from a none-Anglican view this Gay bishop
business is funny in a way.
You have what use to be seen as the staid Anglican Communion having a
civil war over homosexuality.
Catholics have always thought that Anglicanism was much form without
substance.Even formalised that belief with the Decree Apostolica Curae
in 1896.This of course was met with vehement denials by Anglicans.
Since the 1970's you Anglicans by your actions have more or less proven
the decree right,by your extreme liberal turn.
Now we have the Episcopal church in the USA and Canada . More or less
abandoning any of the traditional beliefs of Anglicanism or even
protestantism in general.
It is really a sight to behold.
brachypodium
"Johnny J" <john...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14253-422...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
> First I admit after the abominable job the Catholic church has done with
> the pedophile scandal we should not throw stones,but.
But nothing. I think you should stop right there and hang your head in
shame. Gene Robinson has committed no crime, yet there was opposition to him
from the start. The criminal behaviour of responsible Catholics (as well as
the high levels of homosexuality in seminaries), otoh, went detected but
unchecked for many years.
And never forget that the CoE's existence is as much testimony to the
scandalous behaviour of Catholic priests, cardinals and popes as it is to
differences in theology.
strumunddrang
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lHkWd.296$RK....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
john j
Im Henry the 8th I am, Please if the noble Katherine of Aragon hadn't
been so steadfast. England would still be Catholic ! In fact according
to latest statistics,it is ! Catholocism is the major christian church
in the U.K.
I admit the lousy job we've done with the scandal,but. We have not
revelled in the pedophilia. You revel in the fact that you have
publicly made unrepentant sinner ,a bishop !
Gunny
Atta way to go, Johnny J!! Church Triumphant. Slap 'em down when you can.
Admirable. What a way to show respect and honor to a the venerable See of
Canterbury! Certain to promote unity and reconciliation -- which it is
clear is your primary objective!!
The fact has always been, and the fact is in this day, Rome and Canterbury
were and are "in the same boat". The sole difference between the two
subsists in the fact that Canterbury's unity depends on the consent of the
governed while Rome exercises it's so called primacy of jurisdiction. Rome
is still able to make a papal pronouncment and everyone is expected to bow
in obedience. Most still do.
But in reality Romans are cowed into acquiesence and silence (they still
believe that their eternal salvation hinges on that). Whatever problem is
manifest currently with the Anglican Communion currently exists, unspoken
perhaps, within the Roman context. Eventually, it will manifest itself
there as well. The discordance between Church teaching on Justice and a
radicalized FEAR of gay peoples assertions to rights will not go away within
either of the two communions.
The differerence is not between "those with the Truth" and "those who would
be Pretenders to the Throne" but between those of both historical traditions
who are willing to look for new formulations and "develop doctrine" to meet
newly understood realities and those who would bury their heads in the sand.
Gays have existed in both traditions for my lifetime - 60 years. The fact
that there were "gay" Anglican and "gay" RC laypersons was known to anyone
who had eyes to see. That this was equally true of the ranks of
prysbters -- both Anglican and Roman gay men have been a foundation in each
of the Communions. The detente was that these men remained "in the closet".
It worked until recently.
What does amaze me, above all else in the current debacle among Anglicans,
is that it was triggered -- "all Hell broke loose" as they say -- by the
idea that the ordination of one of those presbyters as bishop posed
supposedly new "theological" considerations.
I have learned the politics of power. It was Gene Robinson's assertion of
his right not only to be a gay Episcopalian that caused "the problem". The
Anglican Tradition would have remained "peaceful" had he been willing to
live out his life in truth and grace serving quietly as a presbyter. I
find all the "brooh hah hah" absurdly tied to his elevation to the
episcopsy.
Neither of the Communions/Traditions has a basis for drawing such a line.
Play what dramatics you will. Anglican or Roman. They are the same.
Come clean!! The nay sayers message is now clear in both Communions. No
Gay Bishops! Then it must follow NO GAY PRESBYTERS! AND, AND it must
follow NO GAY pew space holders. The new mantra for both Communions should
simply be JUST SAY NO TO GAY!
Let me tell you, that mantra will have just as much efficacy, for Romans or
for Anglicans, as the Nancy Reagan original. I've lived among you, on both
sides, for five decades. You are purposefully destroying what has existed.
I am thinking that because you do it that you are evil.
Eventually you will become convinced that "we" are part of HIS creation and
overcome your fears. I'll try to protect myself while you sort out your
"concerns".
>
brachypodium
"john j" <JOH...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14254-422...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
> brachypodium mar. 5th posting
> Im Henry the 8th I am, Please if the noble Katherine of Aragon hadn't
> been so steadfast. England would still be Catholic ! In fact according
> to latest statistics,it is ! Catholocism is the major christian church
> in the U.K.<
Unfortunately for the RCC, quality beats quantity.
> I admit the lousy job we've done with the scandal,but. We have not
> revelled in the pedophilia. You revel in the fact that you have
> publicly made unrepentant sinner ,a bishop !<
Every primate of the Anglican Communion, including that of PECUSA, signed a
declaration that disapproved of Robinson's appointment, and PECUSA is now
under threat of suspension and even expulsion, which presumably nobody feels
happy about. That is not revelling, and it is pretty ignorant and despicable
for anyone to say so, imv, though it's not very surprising that it has come
from a Catholic. As I wrote, quality beats quantity.
brachypodium
news:fqpWd.82$WG1...@fe03.lga...
That is not the case, Gunny. The problem is more practical, being one of
identification. No evangelical wants to be 'under' a homosexual bishop. A
homosexual dean in a cathedral is ok, because the evangelical never needs to
go near a cathedral, and the dean has no authority beyond it. Remember,
Anglicanism is a compromise, and one must play by its rules.
Gunny
gay presbyter is no different from a gay bishop -- both are authority
figures. For me saying "no gay bishops" is the equivalent of saying "no gay
ministers". And both are the equivalent of posting the church doors with
signs, "gay people not welcome here".
Charles Hohenstein
"Gunny" <the...@charter.net> wrote:
> I realize that I again spoke from a Roman perspective. For me, as an RC, a
> gay presbyter is no different from a gay bishop -- both are authority
> figures. For me saying "no gay bishops" is the equivalent of saying "no gay
> ministers". And both are the equivalent of posting the church doors with
> signs, "gay people not welcome here".
I think that a sign indicating that unrepentant sinners are wasting
their time in going to church would be an excellent idea. As long as
they are determined to remain in mortal sin and to multiply their
offenses, the Church has nothing to offer them.
Charles Hohenstein
dancertm
<mucho snippo>
>>> Gays have existed in both traditions for my lifetime - 60 years. The
>>> fact that there were "gay" Anglican and "gay" RC laypersons was known to
>> That is not the case, Gunny. The problem is more practical, being one of
>> identification. No evangelical wants to be 'under' a homosexual bishop. A
>> homosexual dean in a cathedral is ok, because the evangelical never needs
>> to go near a cathedral, and the dean has no authority beyond it. Remember,
>> Anglicanism is a compromise, and one must play by its rules.
>>
>I realize that I again spoke from a Roman perspective. For me, as an RC, a
>gay presbyter is no different from a gay bishop -- both are authority
>figures. For me saying "no gay bishops" is the equivalent of saying "no gay
>ministers". And both are the equivalent of posting the church doors with
>signs, "gay people not welcome here".
>
As I'd stated once before, the current situation rocks the basis of
Christendom. If people are welcomed into a faith community through
Baptism, a church must then allow the natural course to occur. If
people are marked as Christ's own, some will be called to serve the
church in leadership roles. I'd be quite surprised if these folks
bickering in Ireland had not thought of this. There are few cases in
life of "either or". This one is elemental: you can't welcome someone
into a body of Christ and then say only certain rooms are open.
Priscilla Ballou
dancertm <danc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As I'd stated once before, the current situation rocks the basis of
> Christendom. If people are welcomed into a faith community through
> Baptism, a church must then allow the natural course to occur. If
> people are marked as Christ's own, some will be called to serve the
> church in leadership roles. I'd be quite surprised if these folks
> bickering in Ireland had not thought of this. There are few cases in
> life of "either or". This one is elemental: you can't welcome someone
> into a body of Christ and then say only certain rooms are open.
Anthony, I feel a new .sig coming on:
"You can't welcome someone into a body of Christ and then say only
certain rooms are open." -- dancertm in alt.religion.christian.episcopal
What do you think?
Priscilla
--
"And what's this crap about Sodomites? It's always Sodomites this and
Sodomites that. What about us Gomorrahians? We were there too; we
deserve some mention. Sodom always gets the credit, and Gomorrah always
does the work." - JohnN in alt.religion.christian.episcopal
brachypodium
news:hr4m21d90rnhqj94r...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:41:47 -0500, "Gunny" <the...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> <mucho snippo>
>
>>>> Gays have existed in both traditions for my lifetime - 60 years. The
>>>> fact that there were "gay" Anglican and "gay" RC laypersons was known
>>>> to
>
>>> That is not the case, Gunny. The problem is more practical, being one of
>>> identification. No evangelical wants to be 'under' a homosexual bishop.
>>> A
>>> homosexual dean in a cathedral is ok, because the evangelical never
>>> needs
>>> to go near a cathedral, and the dean has no authority beyond it.
>>> Remember,
>>> Anglicanism is a compromise, and one must play by its rules.
>>>
>>I realize that I again spoke from a Roman perspective. For me, as an RC,
>>a
>>gay presbyter is no different from a gay bishop -- both are authority
>>figures. For me saying "no gay bishops" is the equivalent of saying "no
>>gay
>>ministers". And both are the equivalent of posting the church doors with
>>signs, "gay people not welcome here".
>>
>
> As I'd stated once before, the current situation rocks the basis of
> Christendom. If people are welcomed into a faith community<
Not unconditionally. Anglican clergy can be and are from time to time
removed on grounds of adultery. There is no reason to suppose that cases of
homosexuality could and should not be treated similarly.
brachypodium
The RCC is not Anglicanism by a very long way. There are no evangelicals in
the RCC.
Charles Hohenstein
Of course you can, if they lapse from the faith through persistence in
unrepented, serious sin.
Charles Hohenstein
Brian J Dawson
thinking is and our Platonic/Greek heritage. Our church will continue. We
will face the existential anxiety that our scriptures are not faxes from God
but divine inspirations filtered by the ethnocentricism of the writers.
Brian J Dawson
Elbert Wall
> The RCC is not Anglicanism by a very long way. There are no evangelicals in
> the RCC.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
"Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
So what do you mean by "evangelicals" in this context?
--
Don't tell me about none o' your doubts;
I've got enough doubts of my own.
Tell me about something you believe in.
Brother Dave Gardner: Rejoice, Dear Hearts.
dancertm
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <hr4m21d90rnhqj94r...@4ax.com>,
> dancertm <danc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> As I'd stated once before, the current situation rocks the basis of
>> Christendom. If people are welcomed into a faith community through
>> Baptism, a church must then allow the natural course to occur. If
>> people are marked as Christ's own, some will be called to serve the
>> church in leadership roles. I'd be quite surprised if these folks
>> bickering in Ireland had not thought of this. There are few cases in
>> life of "either or". This one is elemental: you can't welcome someone
>> into a body of Christ and then say only certain rooms are open.
>
>Anthony, I feel a new .sig coming on:
>
>"You can't welcome someone into a body of Christ and then say only
>certain rooms are open." -- dancertm in alt.religion.christian.episcopal
>
>What do you think?
>
>Priscilla
fine with me.. :-) gee....
Priscilla Ballou
dancertm <danc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Done!
Hmmm. It didn't show it to me in the composing window, but I have faith
that it will appear when this is posted.
Priscilla
--
Priscilla Ballou
Elbert Wall <ew...@nospam.ipa.net> wrote:
> brachypodium wrote:
>
> > The RCC is not Anglicanism by a very long way. There are no evangelicals in
> > the RCC.
>
> I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
> Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
> Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
> "Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
Absolutely! There's a large and active Charismatic Renewal in the RCC.
One of the most selfless people I ever knew was a leader in it here in
the Boston area.
Priscilla Ballou
Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hmmm. It didn't show it to me in the composing window, but I have faith
> that it will appear when this is posted.
My faith is justified! Justified, I tell you!
Ahem. Excuse me. It must be the cold medicine, which I need since I'm
at the stage of this cold when I go into enormous intense juicy sneezes
that hurt my throat.
Priscilla, wondering if she'll be able to breathe while she sleeps
tonight
Elbert Wall
> In article <QVPWd.2743$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Elbert Wall <ew...@nospam.ipa.net> wrote:
>
>>I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
>>Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
>>Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
>>"Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
>
> Absolutely! There's a large and active Charismatic Renewal in the RCC.
> One of the most selfless people I ever knew was a leader in it here in
> the Boston area.
I guess that should be "arm-waving." "Oh, never mind. I don't need
that arm anyway."
Andreas Höfeld
>>> Jacksonville, Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving,
...
> I guess that should be "arm-waving." "Oh, never mind. I don't need
> that arm anyway."
LOL, please, not when I'm having coffee</wipe="coffee off screen and
keyboard>
Andreas
brachypodium
news:QVPWd.2743$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> brachypodium wrote:
>
>> The RCC is not Anglicanism by a very long way. There are no evangelicals
>> in the RCC.
>
> I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
> Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
> Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
> "Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
>
> So what do you mean by "evangelicals" in this context?<
An evangelical is someone who believes in sola fide, sola Scriptura, and the
exclusive priesthood of all believers. Roman Catholics can wave till they
are blue in the face, they will never be evangelicals. They would like us to
think they are, sure. They cannot arrogantly claim to be the Chosen Race any
more, so they are changing their tactics.
cart...@gmail.com
> Christendom. If people are welcomed into a faith community through
> Baptism, a church must then allow the natural course to occur.
This overlooks the fact that Baptism is supposed to engender a change,
and that the 'natural course' should NOT occur after baptism. That is,
if the baptism was real and not just a sham or looked on as an
initiation rite.
CC
Priscilla Ballou
Elbert Wall <ew...@nospam.ipa.net> wrote:
> Priscilla Ballou wrote:
> > In article <QVPWd.2743$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Elbert Wall <ew...@nospam.ipa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
> >>Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
> >>Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
> >>"Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
> >
> > Absolutely! There's a large and active Charismatic Renewal in the RCC.
> > One of the most selfless people I ever knew was a leader in it here in
> > the Boston area.
>
> I guess that should be "arm-waving." "Oh, never mind. I don't need
> that arm anyway."
LOL! I missed that. Must be my cold befuddling my brain. "Let's give
the choir a hand... no, make that an arm!"
jessie
I think you mistake RC for Jews. It is Jews that claim to be the
Chosen Race of God and are the only real "Supremacist" today. If you
don't believe me, just ask one. Hell if you even dare to question
their history you go to jail in most western countries.
In France a politician, Bruno Gollnisch, is in jeopardy for even
suggesting that historians be allowed to discuss the holocaust.
"There isn’t a serious historian around who totally sticks by the
conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials," Gollnisch told a press
conference in Lyon on Monday. "I’m not questioning the existence of
concentration camps, but on the number of deaths, historians can
discuss it...."
Well even this mild suggestion is too much for the ture "Supremacist"
race that controls the legal systems and the financial systems of most
of the world.
Yet there is literally an army of Jewish writers, historians,
theologians, and attorneys that critize every tiny detail of Christian
history and of US history. There critism is universally negative and
most often distorted or outright deception. This double standard is
so blantant that to ignore it or to pretend that it does not exist is
to either be a blantant liar, a total fool, or totally brainwashed to
ignore the truth no matter how much evidence is presented.
Bush's New Anti-Semitism Law May Criminalize Thought
By Sam Francis
"The bill requires only that acts of physical violence against Jews be
recorded, not expressions of anti-Semitism, but you can bet the bill's
promoters will soon be pushing to include what they claim are
"anti-Semitic" expressions to be reported as well. As press reports
noted, "among the attacks that prompted passage of the bill" was "the
recent claim by former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad that
Jews 'rule the world by proxy.'"
"The pattern is the criminalization of thought—for "xenophobia,"
"racism," "white supremacy," "homophobia," "anti-Semitism,"
"patriarchalism," and any number of other isms, manias and phobias
unknown to any language a few years ago. "
"What really drives the crusade to criminalize thought and expression
is not any legitimate revulsion against real violence (which is
already illegal) but the compulsion of powerful and well-organized
lobbies to muzzle criticism."
"Neoconservatives are already claiming that criticism of them is
really "anti-Semitism," which is what they also said about the recent
FBI investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) for espionage for Israel, and what the Anti-Defamation League
and many other Jewish spokesmen said about Mel Gibson's movie, "The
Passion of the Christ," and what the same groups say about criticism
of Israel or of U.S. policies toward Israel."
for entire article:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/anti_semitism.htm
jessie
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted
with important matters. - - - Albert Einstein
brachypodium
news:ta2p21diiuj113gpi...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:58:02 GMT, "brachypodium"
> <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Elbert Wall" <ew...@nospam.ipa.net> wrote in message
>>news:QVPWd.2743$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> brachypodium wrote:
>>>
>>>> The RCC is not Anglicanism by a very long way. There are no
>>>> evangelicals
>>>> in the RCC.
>>>
>>> I guess that depends on what you mean by "evangelical." I've heard a
>>> Benedictine revivalist preaching at Christ The King in Jacksonville,
>>> Florida, and I understand that there are arm-waiving, hand-clapping,
>>> "Glory" shouting Roman Catholics in this country.
>>>
>>> So what do you mean by "evangelicals" in this context?<
>>
>>An evangelical is someone who believes in sola fide, sola Scriptura, and
>>the
>>exclusive priesthood of all believers. Roman Catholics can wave till they
>>are blue in the face, they will never be evangelicals. They would like us
>>to
>>think they are, sure. They cannot arrogantly claim to be the Chosen Race
>>any
>>more, so they are changing their tactics.
>>
> I think you mistake RC for Jews. It is Jews that claim to be the
> Chosen Race of God and are the only real "Supremacist" today.<
Be that as it may, my reference really was to erstwhile Roman CathoIics,
though somewhat metaphorically, and perhaps I should have enclosed the term
in quotes. Thank you for your concern, anyway.
If one goes back far enough, the same 'Race' can be seen to have taken a
rather more down to earth supremacist policy than the Jews have since the
days of Joshua and David, and with rather less excuse.
Of course a true Israelite has no part in either of these, being justified
by faith, as Jacob was.
'But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people
belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out
of darkness into his wonderful light.' (1 Peter 2:9 NIV)
Elbert Wall
> This overlooks the fact that Baptism is supposed to engender a change,
> and that the 'natural course' should NOT occur after baptism. That is,
> if the baptism was real and not just a sham or looked on as an
> initiation rite.
Where does the Bible say that? What change did Jesus undergo when John
baptized Him? What did He convert to?
jessie
wrote:
>cart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> This overlooks the fact that Baptism is supposed to engender a change,
>> and that the 'natural course' should NOT occur after baptism. That is,
>> if the baptism was real and not just a sham or looked on as an
>> initiation rite.
>
>Where does the Bible say that? What change did Jesus undergo when John
>baptized Him? What did He convert to?
Baptism is a sacrament that can strengthen the person's belief and can
enhance the reception of the Holy Spirit and I do not under estimate
the power of baptism. However, the emersion in water is just a bath
if there is no repentance and no acceptance of Christ as our savior.
Baptism cannot wash away your sins if you do not repent of them.
Baptism is just a sham if it is done without repentance and without
true belief in Christ and without a real desire to lead a Christian
life.
Baptism is not some magic hocus pocus that will transform a willful
sinner into a Christian despite the person's beliefs and despite the
person's repentance and desire to embrace the Holy Spirit and live a
Christian life. It is not a magic potion of external transformation,
but one of internal enhancement of existing beliefs and of internal
enhancement of the person's comprehension and ability to accept the
Holy Spirit. However, the person must be a willing participant, not
some lump of stone undergoing an external transformation.
All aspects of Christianity revolve upon belief, hope, and repentance.
These aspects are inseparable and must all be present for the person
to become baptized and to accept the Holy Spirit.
Using your description of baptism, all we need do is grab people off
the street and baptize them to effect a conversion to Christianity.
LOL I don't think even you believe that this is possible.
strumunddrang
thinking is and our Platonic/Greek heritage. Our church will continue. We
will face the existential anxiety that our scriptures are not faxes from God
but divine inspirations filtered by the ethnocentricism of the writers."
Brian J Dawson
This is exactly right and very well put. That the Sacred Scriptures while
divnely inspired are not directly dictated from the mouth of God into the
ear of the author and therefore reflect the world view that has been extinct
for thousands of years. Well maybe not extinct, eh Charles? Sturmunddrang
LIGHTEN our darkenes, we beseche thee, O Lorde, and by thy greate mercye,
defend us from al perilles and daungers of thys nyghte, for the love of thy
onely Sonne, our Savyoure Jesus Christe. Amen.
Charles Hohenstein
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> An evangelical is someone who believes in sola fide, sola Scriptura, and the
> exclusive priesthood of all believers.
I think that's something of an over-simplification. Anglican
evangelicals haven't always bought into the sola fide business--John
Wesley certainly didn't. He referred disparagingly to "solifidianists."
Also, the point about the "exclusive priesthood of all believers" has
meant something more like the priesthood of no believers among extreme
protestants. I don't think Anglican evangelicals have necessarily bought
into that either.
In any case, I think that the old conflict between high church and low
church, or Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical is developing into a different
situation. People on both sides of that divide share a belief in divine
revelation and are finding common cause with each other these days.
Anglo-Catholics from Forward in Faith are learning to live with people
from the Reformed Episcopal Church and Evangelicals from Africa, and the
Continuing Anglican churches are also getting into the act. I find that
very encouraging.
Charles Hohenstein
brachypodium
news:chohenste-B317C...@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <elXWd.431$2T1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> An evangelical is someone who believes in sola fide, sola Scriptura, and
>> the
>> exclusive priesthood of all believers.
>
> I think that's something of an over-simplification.<
That's no surprise. On the contrary, it is a standard definition of all
Protestantism, and in the relevant areas actually serves to define
Anglicanism itself, not just its evangelicals. All Anglican clergy, Wesley
included, have signed to the truth of these tenets, in these Articles.
Justification 'by faith only' is established by Article XI; that 'Holy
Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation' is asserted in
Article VI; transubstantiation is denounced as 'repugnant' in XXVIII; and
the offering of Christ as sacrifice by priests is denounced as 'blasphemous'
in Article XXXI. And how many Anglicans, or even Protestants, like to think
they are so 'fundamentalist' in these degenerate days? :o)
> Also, the point about the "exclusive priesthood of all believers" has
> meant something more like the priesthood of no believers among extreme
> protestants.<
I really don't know what you mean by that. If you mean that people do
without elders and deacons that is nothing to do with priesthood, but
ministry.
> In any case, I think that the old conflict between high church and low
> church, or Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical is developing into a different
> situation.
I don't think that there has been a conflict for many decades now; merely a
sort of tolerant apartheid.
>People on both sides of that divide share a belief in divine
> revelation<
Ok, so it is now the Anglos who apply Scripture to the subject of
homosexuality, too. Are you here just to vent your spleen against
evangelicalism? Are you going to tell me that homosexuality has been
unnoticeable in Anglo-Catholic circles for a hundred years? Because I will
not believe you, if you do.
> and are finding common cause with each other these days.<
So the Anglos are cleaning up their act to get in with the evangelicals. All
very sinister, in my book. But call them evangelicals too, if you like;
Gunny is wrong, as neither do they want a homosexual bishop, or so they say.
All the world's a stage, and religion is not excepted.