Church of England Has Now Approved of Women Bishops!

[hotpotato]

The end result will be more Anglicans and Episcopalians going back to Catholicism. We have taken in entire parishes of Anglicans/Episcopalians and integrated them into our Church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/u...for-ex-episcopalians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More recruits for the church of the anti-Christ! ...Paedophiles and women haters. No doubt they will be welcome.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nobody cares about what the Church of England does anymore, even in England, because they have thrown away any claim to legitimacy when they ordained women priests. Until that time, the Catholic Church and the Church of England were in negotiations to reunite, but that became a lost cause when the Church of England ordained women priests and broke Apostolic Succession.

They never had Apostolic Succession to begin with.

Then again neither did the catholics

Prove it.

Bishops aren't apostles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The LDS rewrite history to get it right from their perspective.

They will tell you only faithful LDS historians can write faithful history of the faithful and the church.

They were wrong on theocracy, polygamy, BoM geography, and race, but that won't stop them.

 

[Blackrook]

The scary thing is, the Anglican Church can declare anything to be true if enough Anglicans vote for it at one of their counsels.

Church of England view

Contraception is not regarded as a sin or going against God's purpose
Anglican thinking changed during the 20th Century from concern about increased use of contraception to official acceptance of it.
Is it different from the Roman Catholic view?

Yes. RC teaching says only natural birth control is allowed.
Last official CofE response - 1968 Lambeth Conference (10 yearly gathering of worldwide Anglican bishops).


Full background briefing

The Church of England does not regard contraception as a sin or a contravention of God's purpose. The thinking of the Church on this subject changed substantially during the 20th century. In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared that:

'the Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.'

Some of the Church opposition at this time reflected a national concern about falling birth rates. By the 1920s, certain sections of the Church were beginning to develop a richer understanding of sexuality. Sexual love can be seen as good in itself, and it provided an essential way for a husband and wife to express and strengthen their love for each other. In the Garden of Eden God had said, 'It is not good that the man (Adam) should be alone' (Genesis 2:18). It was also argued that people were limiting their families in order to give children a better chance of success. A resolution at the 1930 Lambeth Conference was greeted with mixed reactions and read

'Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method'

but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence

'that the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.'

By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was a way of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'.

In 1968, the Lambeth Conference considered the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae and while recording their appreciation of the Pope's deep concern for the institution of marriage and family life, the Bishops disagreed with his idea that methods of contraception other than abstinence and the rhythm method are contrary to the will of God.

The contrast between the Anglican position and the Roman Catholic position (reiterated on many occasions by Pope John Paul II in the years following Humanae Vitae) illustrates, in part, different ways of approaching questions of moral theology. Roman Catholics have tended to look to the Pope as the source of authority on moral, as in doctrinal, questions. Anglicans have tended to call on 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason'. Increasingly these approaches are being supplemented by appeals to 'human experience'. It is clear, for example, that the experience of Christian married people in relation to contraception explains some of the change in Anglican thinking between 1930 and 1958.

The Church of England view on contraception

Was the Anglican church wrong when it taught that birth control is a sin?

Or is the Anglican church wrong now?

Either way, it is obvious that the Anglican church can teach falsehood, and if that is true, no Christian can possibly rely on the Church of England to authentically teach the true teachings of Christianity.

 

[Avatar4321]

Haha ...Prove it!

The last word of all believers and non-believers alike!

I know this guy is a Mormon, and they go around telling people they are the true church because somehow Jesus and the Apostles got it all wrong.

And now he's claiming there is no Apostolic Succession.

I assume he has proof of this if he is making this claim.

I want to see it.

You can butt out, because you don't have a dog in this fight.

You're wrong. I'm saying neither of those churches have apostolic succession. Not that it doesn't exist.

And Jesus and the apostles didn't get it wrong. The people just rejected them as Jesus prophecied. The body of Christ was broken and died. But like Christ the church has been restored to life. Christ has spoken and called apostles and given them the keys of the kingdom.

This is the beginning of the restitution of all things that Peter predicted. The opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times when the Lord promised to gather all things together in one.

The Holy spirit bears witness.

 

[Blackrook]

The end result will be more Anglicans and Episcopalians going back to Catholicism. We have taken in entire parishes of Anglicans/Episcopalians and integrated them into our Church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/u...for-ex-episcopalians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More recruits for the church of the anti-Christ! ...Paedophiles and women haters. No doubt they will be welcome.

I'm here for serious discussion, not a flame-fest. If you're not capable of that, be silent so that your betters are not distracted by you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the Anglicans get things wrong, as have the LDS, as have the Catholics, as have the social con evangelicals in America.

That is why we are better of not judging others.

 

[Blackrook]

Haha ...Prove it!

The last word of all believers and non-believers alike!

I know this guy is a Mormon, and they go around telling people they are the true church because somehow Jesus and the Apostles got it all wrong.

And now he's claiming there is no Apostolic Succession.

I assume he has proof of this if he is making this claim.

I want to see it.

You can butt out, because you don't have a dog in this fight.

You're wrong. I'm saying neither of those churches have apostolic succession. Not that it doesn't exist.

And Jesus and the apostles didn't get it wrong. The people just rejected them as Jesus prophecied. The body of Christ was broken and died. But like Christ the church has been restored to life. Christ has spoken and called apostles and given them the keys of the kingdom.

This is the beginning of the restitution of all things that Peter predicted. The opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times when the Lord promised to gather all things together in one.

The Holy spirit bears witness.

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know this guy is a Mormon, and they go around telling people they are the true church because somehow Jesus and the Apostles got it all wrong.

And now he's claiming there is no Apostolic Succession.

I assume he has proof of this if he is making this claim.

I want to see it.

You can butt out, because you don't have a dog in this fight.

You're wrong. I'm saying neither of those churches have apostolic succession. Not that it doesn't exist.

And Jesus and the apostles didn't get it wrong. The people just rejected them as Jesus prophecied. The body of Christ was broken and died. But like Christ the church has been restored to life. Christ has spoken and called apostles and given them the keys of the kingdom.

This is the beginning of the restitution of all things that Peter predicted. The opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times when the Lord promised to gather all things together in one.

The Holy spirit bears witness.

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

 

[Blackrook]

Yes, the Anglicans get things wrong, as have the LDS, as have the Catholics, as have the social con evangelicals in America.

That is why we are better of not judging others.

I'm not judging anyone. I'm sure many Anglicans get into heaven.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're wrong. I'm saying neither of those churches have apostolic succession. Not that it doesn't exist.

And Jesus and the apostles didn't get it wrong. The people just rejected them as Jesus prophecied. The body of Christ was broken and died. But like Christ the church has been restored to life. Christ has spoken and called apostles and given them the keys of the kingdom.

This is the beginning of the restitution of all things that Peter predicted. The opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times when the Lord promised to gather all things together in one.

The Holy spirit bears witness.

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

That is an opinion born from man. Who are we to say these things were not God's will?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the Anglicans get things wrong, as have the LDS, as have the Catholics, as have the social con evangelicals in America.

That is why we are better of not judging others.

I'm not judging anyone. I'm sure many Anglicans get into heaven.

No way for you or I to have any idea about, anymore than how many Baptists do.

 

[Blackrook]

You're wrong. I'm saying neither of those churches have apostolic succession. Not that it doesn't exist.

And Jesus and the apostles didn't get it wrong. The people just rejected them as Jesus prophecied. The body of Christ was broken and died. But like Christ the church has been restored to life. Christ has spoken and called apostles and given them the keys of the kingdom.

This is the beginning of the restitution of all things that Peter predicted. The opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times when the Lord promised to gather all things together in one.

The Holy spirit bears witness.

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

Well, that never happened. But tell me, when do you think it did? Please give me an exact date and place, and the people involved.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

That is an opinion born from man. Who are we to say these things were not God's will?

The beauty or the gospel is no one has to take my word for it. The Lord will teach the truth of all things to all people by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Read the Book of Mormon, take the challenge. The Holy Ghost will teach you the truth of all things.

 

[mudwhistle]

The time was coming when this was destined to happen and that time has now come to fruition. Many women have been ministers for a very long time in other denominations and now all of the Anglican churches can join in the celebration and welcome these female bishops to minister to the flock.

Women Bishops Approved By Church Of England... Finally - Democratic Underground

Wow!!!

Do they have the right to vote yet?

 

[TheOldSchool]

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

That is an opinion born from man. Who are we to say these things were not God's will?

The beauty or the gospel is no one has to take my word for it. The Lord will teach the truth of all things to all people by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Read the Book of Mormon, take the challenge. The Holy Ghost will teach you the truth of all things.

I read it long ago and still have my copy on my bookshelf. I won't be disrespectful so I'll just say that my Catholic faith was not swayed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the BoM is religious fiction to me of the early 19th century; much of it is good writing, I think

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you have anything to back up any of these claims?

I mean, let's be specific. At what point in time was Apostolic Succession broken?

Give me exact names of the people involved, and exact dates when this occurred, and exact places where this happened.

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

Well, that never happened. But tell me, when do you think it did? Please give me an exact date and place, and the people involved.

There are no apostles in either church. That alone tells you there has been no apostolic succession

 

[Blackrook]

When the apostles stopped being ordained and the church began to be lead by politicians rather than revelation

Well, that never happened. But tell me, when do you think it did? Please give me an exact date and place, and the people involved.

There are no apostles in either church. That alone tells you there has been no apostolic succession

Yes, there were 12 Apostles, but they ordained bishops, and those bishops ordained more bishops.

Apostolic Succession means that every bishop of the Roman Catholic Church can trace his ordination back to an Apostle in an unbroken chain.

Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers

Any way, I've asked you several times for proof that Apostolic Succession was broken, and several times you have refused to come up with any.

I understand that this is a foundational belief for the Mormons, but I ask you to tell me, a non-Mormon, why I should believe that God would allow his Church to be broken, and then rebuilt hundreds of years later? It doesn't seem that God is all that powerful if his church can be broken for such a long period of time.

 

[DriftingSand]

If the groaning and moaning of the souls like DS would only realize that Jesus is judge and they are not, only called to love their neighbors as themselves, they would be much, much content with their lives.

Jesus is not constrained by evangelical Christianity, never has been, He never will be put into a box by modern Christian pharisees spouting latter day heresies, like the Rapture for instance.

Let's see what Jesus is NOT constrained by -- shall we Jake?

Matthew 13:38-43,
"38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Sound all lovey dovey Jake? How dare Jesus Christ send forth His angels and cast the wicked into the lake of fire.

Here's the very words of Jesus Christ:

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Before you presume to elevate yourself to Christ's spokesman you had better know what He has to say first. As it stands you may consider yourself a false prophet and a false teacher. Here's what the Bible has to say about folks like you:

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."