Mountain Christians Group

That article is not biased at all. Ha-ha!

"But it seemed a rare opportunity, audaciously executed, to capitalize on deep divisions within the Anglican Church to attract new members at a time when the Catholic Church has been trying to reinvigorate itself in Europe."

The Traditionalist Anglicans approached the Vatican first...and quite some time ago at that.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904725.htm

L.A. Times
Editorial
Courting Anglicans
The pope's welcoming of Anglicans disaffected by their church's greater openness only shows how far the gay-rights movement has to go to dispel religious intolerance.

October 24, 2009

This week's announcement that the Roman Catholic Church will welcome disaffected Anglicans en masse is of primary interest to members of the two Christian communions. But this religious realignment is also a reminder to supporters of equality for women and gays and lesbians that they must literally preach to the converted if they are to win believers to their cause.

Pope Benedict XVI has offered the Anglicans a special status within Catholicism that will preserve their traditions and allow married Anglican priests to continue their ministry. Those likely to accept are animated by opposition to innovations including the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the United States, blessings for same-sex couples in Canada and the Church of England's decision to allow female bishops.

Not every dissatisfied Anglican will change churches. Nor will this development drown out voices within the Roman Catholic Church favoring full participation by women and homosexuals. But Benedict's action is part of a formidable religious backlash against gay rights that isn't confined to the pulpit; witness the lobbying by some religious leaders against same-sex civil marriages.

Under the 1st Amendment, churches in this country can't be forced to alter their doctrine or to stop preaching against the supposed immorality of homosexuality. Even so, supporters of gay rights in particular -- many of them Christians -- should try to dispel the notion that belief in God is incompatible with full equality for gays and lesbians.

Now as before the pope's action, Christians can be reminded -- as they have been by both Anglican and Catholic theologians -- that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion to the desirability of religious tolerance. You don't have to be Catholic (or Anglican) to realize that society as a whole would be better off if the church's views of women and gays underwent a similar evolution.

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15029

Jon... I didn't pick up the slant. I apologize again-- it wasn't my purpose to imply anything negative.

I saw that many anglicans... many outside England were feeling left out by their churches and the several are crossing back... even entire congregations. The Vatican has been receptive and has extended an open hand.

.....or how far apostate the church has become and not talking here of just the issue of sexual orientation.

trendygirlclothing says,
.....or how far apostate the church has become and not talking here of just the issue of sexual orientation.

In my humble opinion, the Episcopal church is not so much apostate but doing it's best to become relevant. You will say that's being apostate, I would say if the church is to survive it will need to be relevant to the times in which we live.

Being rigid and unyielding in ONE truth when there are thousands of interpretations of scripture does not allow for that kind of relevance. I suspect you are talking about not only allowing openly gay bishops and confirmation of same sex relationships, but women in the priesthood and ministry of the church. We now have a woman as the presiding bishop elect of the Episcopal Church in America, the Reverand Katherine Jefferts Schori. I see this as a sign of relevance, not apostasy.

We now have a woman leading the Episcopal congregation here on our mountain, St. Richards. She is already loved and respected by the congregation and as a result their numbers seem to be increasing. To me this is an example of a church that is becoming relevant to the spiritual needs of the community and at the same time, welcoming and accepting all of God's children into their fold, even the gay ones. I don't know about you, but that seems to be what I believe Jesus would want in a Christian congregation. PG

Also I find it quite curious that the Catholic Church is now willing to accept women priests and married priests as part of their outreach to conservative Anglicans. What happened to those rules in the church? Is this going to be a slippery slope to allowing women and married priests into the Catholic church also? You see the rules can and do change. PG

Popular guy

Of course I don't mean this to hurt your feelings. Cuz you are always really gracious and kind.

But what our opinions are or our relevancy to culture means zip. The church changing to be relevant is what the bible calls apostasy. Which is falling away from truth. Trading truth for popularity.

The culture doesnt shape the church, if it does, then truth becomes relative. If the truth is relative we are all doomed cuz then its not really truth.

Truth is truth, simply because it does not change.

PoplarGuy,

Of course I don't mean this to hurt your feelings. Cuz you are always really gracious and kind.

You would never hurt my feelings trendy. And thank you for the kind words in refering to me.

But what our opinions are or our relevancy to culture means zip. The church changing to be relevant is what the bible calls apostasy. Which is falling away from truth. Trading truth for popularity.

The problem I have with your assertion is that there seems to be many TRUTHS. There seems to be so many interpretations of scripture, so which interpretation is the real TRUTH? You have your interpretation of TRUTH, and certainly have a right to it, but on the issue of gay marriage, gay rights, married priests, celibate priests, women priests, pastors, there are obviously those who have very different ideas of what TRUTH is according to THEIR interpretation of scripture. Is the Catholic prohibition of married priests or women priests the real TRUTH about what the bible says or do the Episcopaleans, who allow such things, have the real TRUTH about those issues?
Allowing those who are dissenting and breaking away from the Episcopalean church to now be embraced by the Catholic church and still allow married priests and women priests, is that not changing an established TRUTH of the Catholic church to fit the culture?

The culture doesn't shape the church, if it does, then truth becomes relative. If the truth is relative we are all doomed cuz then its not really truth.

The culture does shape the church. You know I have gone to some of the new mega churches recently and I have not recognized these new methods of worship. I thought I was at a rock concert at some of them. How folks worship is changing to fit the culture. As we come to realize that the culture changes, it may mean that the church, and how we worship has to change. I don't find this bad. In fact I have enjoyed this kind of worship. If this is a way of attracting young people to church, that cannot be a bad thing. I am all for it.

I grew up in a Church of Christ in the Lincoln Heights section of east Los Angeles. The truth was always changing according to which pastor we hired to lead the church. One of them did not believe in Christmas, so while he was there, no Christmas. He thought we should not be celebrating this pagan holiday of excess. Then we had one who came and said we should not be using any instruments. So out went the beautiful organ that we had bought a few years before. One of them said that the only people going to heaven were the 300 members of that congregation so if you wanted your heavenly reward you better stick with him. One was adamant about his condemnation of Catholics. He knew for sure they were all going to hell because they were idol worshipers, with those crucifixes and statues of the virgin Mary. All of these men knew they were preaching THE TRUTH as they saw it in scripture. They all had scriptural justification for THEIR TRUTH.

Truth is truth, simply because it does not change.

Just remember there may be other kinds of TRUTH which may not be YOUR TRUTH. That does not make those truths less valid or even not true. They are just different from yours. Jews believe that you should not eat pork and some believe this very strongly. That is their truth from Leviticus. To them it is an abomination. Most Christians do not accept that TRUTH. PG

I grew up as a Catholic near East La back in the times where yep we loved all those statues and saints that adorned our church. It was a time when Latin was spoken and you would kneel so many times your knees would hurt, one thing about Latin you could try to follow along but you would be lost adventually.The church took down all the statues now and became more modern to except a larger congregation. I know change is enevitable.The statue of Mary was gone and I felt a loss since she was what I could relate to as a child, and I had shared many a prayer with her, to some praying to Mary would be blastphemy.My point is this, my God, your God, thier God whatever you believe in I truly believe that a maker that can create all will be able to sort out all our hearts and not be so hindered by the cr*# we put ourselves through. I have a real problem with accepting the Bible way too much tampering of a redeemed book of worship. (For me not saying you) and I have great respect for Jewish people and those not in your face or knocking on my door creating bad PR for their beliefs. Life is simple and we all make it so very hard. I don't see Jews holding signs protesting over a right not to love the one you love or a sign stateing, one man one woman! you have no right to have what I have is the only message I recieve from that .I lived life lucky enough to be an artist my entire life and I wouldn’t want you to know what’s in the box when we all cross over. Again change is something all can fight over but you will always lose when it is a tide for the better tomorrow.

Well said tempest. Thanks for your comments. PG

Poplarguy, what you speak of is classic relativism. Something is either true or its not. Basic reason can tell you that much.

"The truth was always changing according to which pastor we hired to lead the church." -PG

The truth stays the same always. What changed was what your pastors believed...which may or may not have been the truth. This is a very "biblical" concept. What is truth according to Scripture? Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) Can truth change? No. It is the same yesterday, today, and always. (Heb 13:8) Therefore, something is either true, or it is not.

"They all had scriptural justification for THEIR TRUTH." -PG

They all had scriptural justification for what they believed scripture to teach...which may or may not have been the truth.

"Allowing those who are dissenting and breaking away from the Episcopalean church to now be embraced by the Catholic church and still allow married priests and women priests, is that not changing an established TRUTH of the Catholic church to fit the culture?" -PG

To cure you of your ignorance, there a few things you must know about this statement, Poplarguy.

Celibacy is only a requirement in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. There are other rites in the Church that allow priests to marry. Marriage for priests is only a discipline, rather than a dogma. There is a difference.

Women have never been priests in the Church. Likewise, men have never been nuns. The matter of a male priesthood is actually a dogma, rather than a discipline, which means no one, including the Pope, can change that.

The Church has always allowed different cultures to maintain those practices that do not conflict with Catholic dogma and still remain part of the Church.

J_Sorenson says,
Poplarguy, what you speak of is classic relativism. Something is either true or it's not. Basic reason can tell you that much.

Is it possible that one person would see, in a certain passage of scripture, something that justifies what they consider to be THEIR TRUTH, while another person may read that same scripture and see something totally different to justify what they consider THEIR TRUTH?

"The truth was always changing according to which pastor we hired to lead the church." -PG

The truth stays the same always. What changed was what your pastors believed...which may or may not have been the truth.

I am certain that all of these pastors were able to say they had the absolute truth of God based on how they interpreted a particular scripture they were using to justify the dogma that they believed and were inflicting on the congregation. So, who determines which interpretation of scripture is THE REAL TRUTH in this case?

This is a very "biblical" concept. What is truth according to Scripture? Jesus Christ. (John 14:6) Can truth change? No. It is the same yesterday, today, and always. (Heb 13:8) Therefore, something is either true, or it is not.

If different interpretations of scripture do not apply as far as how some Christians believe, why do we have so many flavors of Christianity? If there is one truth and one truth only, then there should be just one Christian church, don't you think? I am sure it would be the Catholic church that you would be voting for. But what happens to the Baptist, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the hundreds of independent Christian congregations who all declare that their interpretation of the truth of God is what will get you the heavenly reward. Are the differences in dogma between those congregations considered classic relativism? Are they entitled to their interpretation of scripture, their justification of their particular dogma, or not?

"They all had scriptural justification for THEIR TRUTH." -PG

They all had scriptural justification for what they believed scripture to teach...which may or may not have been the truth.

And of course that is my whole point. If that is what they believe to be THEIR TRUTH and it may or may not be considered THE TRUTH, who decides? Maybe that will all be sorted out at some future time, don't you think? PG

J_Sorenson says,
"Allowing those who are dissenting and breaking away from the Episcopalian church to now be embraced by the Catholic church and still allow married priests and women priests, is that not changing an established TRUTH of the Catholic church to fit the culture?" -PG

To cure you of your ignorance, there a few things you must know about this statement, Poplarguy.

Celibacy is only a requirement in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. There are other rites in the Church that allow priests to marry. Marriage for priests is only a discipline, rather than a dogma. There is a difference.

So what you are saying is that priests in the Latin rite of the Catholic church remain celibate as a discipline, yet you indicate it's a requirement. In other words it's not required as a dogma of the church, just a discipline, but in other rites of the church priests are allowed to marry. Is the discipline of celibacy in the Latin church not justified by any kind of scriptural admonition? In other words, priests in the Latin rite of the Catholic church choose celibacy as a required discipline. I find that fascinating. There are priests in the Catholic church then who do marry. I have never heard of that. Thanks for curing me of my ignorance on that subject.

Women have never been priests in the Church. Likewise, men have never been nuns. The matter of a male priesthood is actually a dogma, rather than a discipline, which means no one, including the Pope, can change that.

And who determined this dogma in the first place? Was it an admonition from Jesus Christ himself, that women should never be allowed to be the leaders of His church? Did He say somewhere in the scriptures that men can only be priests and women can only be nuns? Why has that now changed in some Christian churches and women are allowed more prominent roles of leadership? Why is it now going to be ok for women to be priests in the breakaway Anglican churches being embraced by the Catholic church? If the pope can't change that dogma, how is that going to change now? I am not sure that you have given me an adequate answer to that question. You may not know and that is ok if you don't.

The Church has always allowed different cultures to maintain those practices that do not conflict with Catholic dogma and still remain part of the Church.

In other words there are some cultural practices that do not need to be given any kind of scriptural justification, as long as they are not in conflict with Catholic dogma. I saw some examples of this when I was in school in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1965. It became obvious to me that the church endorsed some of the practices and rituals of the indigenous Indian population as part of their religious services. I found that to be very interesting and at the same time an example of tolerance by the church that was quite enlightening. Or to be a bit more cynical, perhaps the only way they could keep those folks in the church. PG

Truth stays the same always? Well seems allot have not only bent the TRUTH to fit, they take away scriptures that allowed women more prominent roles and that is in allot of different religions. No man wanted a woman’s strength in religion they kept us out and put us down and wonder why we won't follow them blindly and keep our mouths shut...Again the times are changing and even those who can argue a point better doesn’t mean their right...Omission is the same as lying and why any woman would follow especially the Mormon faith is way beyond me, When men cant even get it together here on earth what makes you think your going to be a leader in the heavens? Plain and simple thought I know but really?

There's gonna be a fight, and I'm selling tickets......

It seems to me that many faiths, Catholic Church included, practice moral relativism but disguise it a revelation. Like when the Anglican church humiliated Darwin or the Catholic church tried Galileo for heresy. One Catholic website even goes so far to say that yes, the church imprisoned Galileo, but he was treated rather well. It's just ridiculous. Just admit you got it wrong and move on.