/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>762117

>The current state of the country reflects the current state of this church.

Plurality Evangelical?

>>762120

Hellishly liberal.

But also, yes, oddly enough.

How do you justify >>761932

>>762136

I don't. They're abuses. Ones which are indicative of a broader disease, and which I believe can only be fought at the root, which are in the Episcopal Church itself. If the Episcopal Church goes left, the country goes left. If the Episcopal Church goes right, then the elites of the country go right and the spirit of the country goes right.

>>762117

>Anglican orders are valid.

female priests/bishops??? ;o

>>762147

Of the men. Like I said, the ordination of women is an abuse. It's happened before in other communions, and it was an abuse then as well.

>>762156

ok how does one tell what is a abuse and not?

>>762156

How do you expect to close Pandora's box?

What are your thoughts on Henry Newman and his works on the development of Church Doctrine?

When you say British Christianity was separate from Rome do you mean that in the sense they denied the legitimacy of papal primacy and actively considered that a heretical doctrine?

>>762157

Tradition, primarily Scripture, as well as the writings of the church fathers of the undivided church, of previous ecumenical councils of the Anglican tradition, and (with discretion) the writings of saints from the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well.

Taking all of these into account, and forming the requisite ecumenical councils, decisions can be made.

In the Anglican world, both the ordination of female "priests" and female "bishops" were irregular, done irregularly, without the acceptance of the Episcopate at large. In other words, they were done rebeliously, much like the postconciliar abuses in the Roman church. They were done to the point that the authorities simply accepted them.

>>762166

How does anyone in any church? Infiltrate. Assume authority. Condemn the abuses. Return to orthodoxy.

>>762170

>Newman

I haven't read his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. I intend to give it a read at some point. I can't imagine I'll disagree too much.

>separate from Rome

No. That's not what I mean. Pre-William, the Anglo-Saxon bishopswere known for being very Pro-Rome, until Rome actually started requiring obedience and tribute. They were Catholic, but their ecclesial structure and pieties were different from, say, France or Spain.

I mean only that their Church was, in spirit and structure, somewhat detached from the continent. Although, I've read some conflicting reports about William at some point declaring himself the head of the Church in England, and pushing away the Pope. Although it's my understanding that this was patched up. The sort of conflict we'll see later with Henry VIII was really NOT new.

>>762188

Check'd and heil'd.

In your understanding, if one of the co-consecraters is invalid, then the ordination itself is invalid. Correct?

>>762194

>95% of the TEC is hellbent on ministering and evangelizing heresy and they are carrying out the work of the devil.

I don't disagree.

There is the small matter of the Roman Catholic Church being consecrated to Satan. See embed related.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0SiRVsrO84

That of course, does not mean we can just up and say that the Catholic Church now belongs to Satan. We don't get to give up territory that way. Not on the physical battlefield, and not on the spiritual battlefield. So why would we do it with Anglicanism?

Given that the state religion of America is currently one of Progressivism with it's principal eucharistic rite being the sacrifice of the unborn to Moloch, I cannot but think that all Christianity is rebellion at this point. However, there is but one heart of all this, and it is Anglicanism. If the sacrifices for all the world are made in the Vatican, then the sacrifices for the United States are made somewhere as well. That somewhere is, I believe, not in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, nor in any decentralized congregation (though to some extent in all of them), but in the Episcopal Church. If we want to look for the sickness in America, we must look at the Episcopal Church. If we want to look for the sickness in England, we must look at the Church of England. There may be a time at which God will bring them tumbling down. For England, that time has likely come, but I am not certain that time has come for America, and I pray that we reconcile that it may never come at all.

>>762117

>The Celtic Christianity came from Syrian Christianity.

Very interesting, can you elaborate on this?

>>762194

Pardon the double-posting, but do you mind if I ask where you ended up?

>>762204

I'll try to get more in depth tomorrow, as I have to get to sleep so I can go to church tomorrow morning.

The basics are that there are some certain liturgical similarities between the old

Celtic liturgies and the Syrian liturgies. These similarities go so far, and remain so long as to prompt people to say that England was, before the Schism of 1054, Orthodox, rather than Catholic, despite the fact that they were in Communion with Rome.

There's also the fact that Celts are, racially, derived from Syrians who went North to Spain and later to Ireland. (Spaniards are also Celts if you didn't know.)

For more info see:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/celtic.aspx

Robert Graves The White Goddess

Those aren't really the best sources, but they're the ones off the top of my head (and Google).

The long and short of it is that the Celtic Christianity probably has more roots in Eastern Monasticism which spread to Ireland than in the Roman Rite Catholicism which was the cult of the continent. This probably has something to do with how remote they were. The monastic model probably worked better specifically because they were remote.

>>762117

I'll bump for our silly Church; may our tea and scones be eucharistic, may Peter Hitchens evangelize us and may Justin Welby retire.

>The removal of language on sacrifice and propitiation in the Anglican ordination rites, as critiqued by Pope Leo XIII, were done in the Catholic Ordination rites after Vatican II.

Not they weren't and beside the main thing is that you guys don't do it with the right intention too since you don't believe mass is a sacrifice.

Also

>Bishop: Do you resolve to celebrate faithfully and reverently, in accord with the Church's tradition, the mysteries of Christ, especially the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, for the glory of God and the sanctification of the Christian people?

>Elect: I do.

Sacrifice of the Eucharisty hmmmm

>Bishop: Do you resolve to be united more closely every day to Christ the High Priest, who offered himself for us to the Father as a pure Sacrifice, and with him to consecrate yourselves to God for the salvation of all?

>Elect: I do, with the help of God.

Be united with the Hight Priest Christ who offered himself as a pure sacrifice? Hmmm

I guess you were right. We are the ones with invalid priesthood.

Just.

But ironically the male ordination in the Swedish Lutheran Church is valid since they really have apostolic succession. (when until the lesbian bishops destroy the male hierarchy)

Repent and begone Anglican rite gatholic.

>>762345

>you don't believe mass is a sacrifice.

Ummm, I do, also I had the Eucharist this morning and the vicar's language was definitely sacrificial, it was also presented as being the true body and blood of the Saviour. You see, we aren't legalistic, but we are Catholic. It's not a question of canon law for us whether a thing is or isn't, rather "where we are" ritually speaking is determined by faith alone and the law that presides upon it is the law of conscience.

This might raise a few eyebrows, especially when there are abuses of the openness this entails, but so far I haven't found the need yet to become Anglican rite Catholic

>>762347

The stripped down language I dislike, although as you can see, we do maintain a sacrificial understanding of Christ's atonement.

>>762348

We all know that even if that's true today it wasn't in the beginning when your king Edward yielded to the protestant interests and took their believes about the Mass and etc, the apostolic succession lasted maybe to the second generation of bishops at most.

I know that many anglos are going back to the roots, some of them are even praying the rosary.

>This might raise a few eyebrows, especially when there are abuses of the openness this entails, but so far I haven't found the need yet to become Anglican rite Catholic

Than what's stopping you to go back to the Church?

>The stripped down language I dislike, although as you can see, we do maintain a sacrificial understanding of Christ's atonement.

It probably would sound better in Latin but likeng the language or not is a matter or opinion. The Orthos ordinate with order words but the intention is there.

>we do maintain a sacrificial understanding of Christ's atonement.

That's good, but first you would need just one Bishop properly ordinated.

For now Anglican ordinarites are fine, but I hope one day the whole high church can go back to the Catholic Church, probably even getting their own Patriarch.

I see more future in that than with the orthobros tbqh.

>>762183

>Tradition, primarily Scripture, as well as the writings of the church fathers of the undivided church,

Why do you not listen to them about anything else? The Church Fathers clearly don't preach Anglicanism. You have to be incredibly dishonest or not actually read them to believe this.

>>762352

Do find another church for your vicar and your parish.

Since your vicar is already ordained the process will be smooth as winnie the pooh.

From what you describe you are already more Catholic than 99% of the catholics I've met.

If there's no Catholic Church nearby, I think imo that's OK to go to your mass since that if your priest is a valid one and says the words of consacration, although illicit the sacrament is valid.

Still I'd discuss this with your vicar about getting an Anglican ordinarite.

>>762355 (checked)

Well, I'm only passing through, I don't wish to presume with the vicar, he's a kindly man (so is our ersatz bishop a kindly woman, but nevertheless as a strict question, she is not a Bishop in the sense of the apostles and there's no denying it if we're actually Chalcedonians and not some weird anti-Pauline heresy).

>From what you describe you are already more Catholic than 99% of the catholics I've met.

Pfft, sour grapes all over then? This is why I want to take the ordinariate route; namely do even Catholics care? Having known many Catholics, the answer I come to is that about 3 in 10 do. Now all I guess the last problem I will have is Humanae Vitae — now that was a Galileo Affair I really didn't need in my bedroom tbqh, and it still pisses me off that Paul VI did it, because I know for a fact that he made sure of mass apostasy in every quarter, and not just his own Church, though it might be shitty in Paul VI's view to use contraception, and I by no means condone abortion, we must all do what's best for the mouths we have to feed here on earth already, and by making the absolutist point, the Streisand effect took over and now we have a Moloch worship problem.

In short I would even go so far as to blame the entire pro-life/pro-choice culture war of our time on Paul VI's imbecilic choice to crusade in the bedroom against liberalism, while the liberals waged total war on everything else; gutting us culturally when the real emphasis should have been on our conscience from the beginning.

I wish I had an answer to that problem

>>762391

>The image

I actually totally agree with him, forgive me for tone policing the Vatican, also I have yet to read the epistle, so my views may or may not change, but I have an open mind.

>Natural family planning

That mate, is the "kosher switch" of birth control

>God didn't make it just so you can indulge your senses

No he didn't, I accept that too, but being real about the situation means accepting that birth control happened in every era

Really all I'm concerned about from a realistic standpoint is that many feel that they have been priced out of salvation. Christ is the bread of the world; the teaching in Humanae Vitae makes him too expensive for many sinners. I'm not saying we should just fail to teach them when it suits a liberal agenda, but certainly we have to get people started on the path, rather than throwing them in at the deep end, and Humanae Vitae really is the deep end. Learning needs to be gradual, although I accept he had the best of motives for the family and the sacrament of marriage.

>>762410

>That mate, is the "kosher switch" of birth control

How come?

>, but being real about the situation means accepting that birth control happened in every era

Sodomy and aborting happened in every era as well, that doesn't make them better. Same with contraception.

>the teaching in Humanae Vitae makes him too expensive for many sinners.

Christ Himself says we need to go through the narrow door.

The path to salvation is a very hard one.

And besides as the Apostle Paul said God doesn't give us temptations which we can't resist.

Everyone of those fornicators can overcome their addiction.

>Learning needs to be gradual

I agree 100% and so does the church.

When, for example, a "remarried" Catholic couple ask the priest for help they go through a gradual spiritual growth. Sin by habit is very difficult to let go. So bit by bit, day by day they'll grow in holiness until they can drop their sin for ever.

Same with other sins.

>>762413

>How come kosher switch?

I'll try to be charitable here but ultimately having sex with your wife when she's not got a mature egg to receive it is equivalent to masturbation on the very facts of the matter. I could also argue that since condoms are not 100% effective, using only them means that I'm open to having children (by the uttermost sliver of probability).

These are the problems with legalistic arguments, and you should not tread lightly upon Eruvs or walk unguarded in Synagogues.

>The narrow door

>No temptation we cannot resist

I agree, no married couple should use one another for sexual gratification alone, it is a great sin. But how am I to police it? This I think is our problem, I am sure God will have the right measure of justice on the matter come judgement day, but what can His earthly bride do about it? It just seems politically motivated and reactionary.

I understand however that Christ demands sacrifices of us in every area of our lives, and this is no exception. I will need to think about it further and consult the Scriptures and weigh it all in the balance.

>>762419

>I'll try to be charitable here but ultimately having sex with your wife when she's not got a mature egg to receive it is equivalent to masturbation on the very facts of the matter.

Not quite. First of all using this method there's no 100% guarantees that she will not get pregnant.

The chance is slim of course, but everytime you open hostilities so to speak, you are open to that slim possibility while people who use condoms don't really want kids from that sexual relation.

So although in this case sex is motivated by lust, since they are married and are open to have kids, which is the prime objective of sex, their sin is a venial sin only. While rejecting the very possibility of having kids, the act of using a condom (it is still possible like you said but its the intention that matters) shows you are not using sex as God intended and that's a mortal sin.

For example imagine you want to make money. Money was made so that we can buy things to have a comfortable life. So you work that you may win money. That's the normal thing.

But you might also like money too much and work not only to live and to make more money (let's ignore sins associated with this for the sake of the argument). But still you are making money legally, so you're just a bit greedy, but not a bad person.

But if you want money so much that commit a crime for it, than it is an enormous sin. Not only because you were greedy but you broke the state's law to get it (analogous to the natural law in sex). So you are a criminal in the eyes of the cops.

The objective in all cases is to make money. The difference are the means.

Secondly what concerns the dignity of the spouses. Both have to practice abstinence during the more fertile times, abstinence is a Christian value, moreover the man learns to respect and enjoy the dignity of his wife's body and its a good way to master self control by only having sex on selected days so to speak.

>>762437

In any case you might want to read a letter from St. Augustine about marriage and chastity.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1507.htm

Book one is the one that talks about this.

Book II is a refutation of the pelagian attacks.

>>762350

>That's good, but first you would need just one Bishop properly ordinated.

You know the male descended bishops got old catholic, lutheran and indian "blood" in them?

>probably even getting their own Patriarch.

How?

We have our patriarchs because we developed separatedly, and its in our tradition.

The british were a semi-independent province squarely under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West.

Assuming they returned under his fold today, they would, at most, get a major archbishop, like Ukraine.

>>762459

I was thinking of a Patriarch like my country has, the Patriarch of Lisbon.

He is subjected to the Patriarch of the West, aka the pope.

>>762453

Ok, I'll look at it