By Diogenes (articles ) | December 18, 2006 9:18 AM
Liberal Anglicans changed the teachings of their church to allow the ordination of women as priests, and the more conservative Anglicans fretted, complained, but remained.
Liberal Anglicans changed the teachings of their church to give their blessings to same-sex unions, and the more conservative Anglicans fretted, complained, but remained.
Liberal Anglicans changed the teachings of their church to ordain women and active homosexuals as bishops, and some of the more conservative Anglicans finally decided they'd had enough. The Church of England is teetering toward schism. So how would you describe the dynamic? Who pushed the boundaries of tolerance and caused this crisis? From Australia, a story in The Age explains, but the headline itself is enough:
Conservative moves stir Anglican troubles
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($19,491 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Dec. 21, 2006 12:32 PM ET USA
What about our own bishops who take a liberal stance on this issue?
Posted by: Quadratus -
Dec. 19, 2006 4:26 PM ET USA
Bravo for the first comment! That is exactly the left's (or shoud we say the heretical) position. The Church stands on three legs, Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. Liberal Anglicans have none of those legs to stand.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Dec. 18, 2006 9:57 PM ET USA
Good insights, Deacon Bart & esalkin. Recently, I was invited to a "ministerial association" mtg & to an annual "ecumenical prayer service." Yes, Jesus calls us to be one (John 17), but not at the risk of compromising the Truth. I cannot pray with folks who support sodomites & promote them to lead their churches. Indeed, ecumenism really means that protestants come Home to the Roman Catholic Church. That, dear fellow Christians, is what ecumenism's goal should be. (I did not go to the meeting.)
Posted by: Gregory108 -
Dec. 18, 2006 9:54 PM ET USA
The split was inevitable. You can't throw out Tradition, Peter AND now the Bible and make a case for a Church being Christian. I think some Episcopalians see this and are ready to bolt! With not the barest of underpinnings, without the barest of leg to stand on, that Church can't stand. If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. This time they are falling hard!
Posted by: Deacon Bart -
Dec. 18, 2006 1:45 PM ET USA
"Liberals were more circumspect, even though it meant they could not carry forward their agenda." So, its not about Truth. Those who want a bishop to assure authority are looking for Truth not agendas. Pray God they will find their way to Peter. A chuch founded in the sex desires of 1 man (Henry VIII) may yet be desolved by the sex desires of the homosexual movement.
Posted by: -
Dec. 18, 2006 1:38 PM ET USA
Definition time! "Finding common ground" - Agree with the left. "Just compromise" - Agree with the left. "Tolerance" - Agree with the left. "Middle ground" - Position held by the left. "Freedom" - Doing what the left demands. "Disharmony" - Disagree with the left. "Injustice" - Anything not on the left's agenda. "Intolerance" - Failing to admit the left is correct. "Hatred" - Holding a position out of line with the left. "Conservative" - Nazi sympathizer.