It’s nice to see Christians see past their differences to find common ground to build God’s kingdom. God hates homosexuals and proclaimed women should be subordinate to men. The current trend of gay rights and empowered women is very threatening to God’s plan.
ROME, Italy (CNN) – The Vatican said Tuesday it has worked out a way for groups of Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their faith to join the Catholic Church.
The process will enable groups of Anglicans to become Catholic and recognize the pope as their leader, yet have parishes that retain Anglican rites, Vatican officials said. The move comes some 450 years after King Henry VIII broke from Rome and created the Church of England, forerunner of the Anglican Communion.
The number of Anglicans wishing to join the Catholic Church has increased in recent years as the Anglican Church has welcomed the ordination of women and openly gay clergy and blessed homosexual partnerships, said Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Williams, who also is rector of All Saints Anglican Church in Fountain Valley, California, said his parishioners have generally been “very warmly receiving” Tuesday’s announcement.
“It is encouraging for them to know their worship experience wouldn’t be turned upside down by the Roman Catholic Church,” Williams said. “The person in the pew should see very little difference in the way we pray. We might be asked to pray aloud for any pope who happens to be in office, in addition to praying for our primate.
“Really, there’d be very little other difference.”
Apparently the only thing that changes for the converted Anglican Church is their money now goes to the Vatican and the Pope will rule over their church. It’s a win-win. More money and power for the Vatican and Anglicans can ward off scary gay people and women with the audacity to want leadership positions. Praise the Lord.
Tags: Anglican, Catholic, Christian, Church, Convert, Converted, Greed, Hate, Join, Money, Pope, Power, Roman, Rome, Sin, Vatican, Women
October 21, 2009 at 9:41 am |
This one just doesn’t bother me. If folks are going to believe in their faith, they ought to do so. Not keep remaking it every 2nd week. So if the bible and/or your whole church tradition is clear about homosexuals and about women clergy, stick to it.
I’d rather see these folks figure out that they are worshipping a non-existent deity and just turn their church into a bar, meeting hall, bowling alley, etc of course.
October 21, 2009 at 10:02 am |
I have to agree with you. Either follow the Bible or reject it.
With that said, these are some of the very reasons people should unquestionably see that this a man-made god. A god invented by power hungry men who wanted to rule over women, hate those different than themselves and control people with divine laws that threaten with hell.
But again … if you’re going to believe in a primitive deity, go all or nothing.
October 21, 2009 at 11:58 am |
None of the things you listed are tax-exempt. That’s part of the problem.
October 21, 2009 at 12:17 pm |
Best of both worlds. A tax-exempt institution with excessive political power.
October 21, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Apparently you and LeoPardus gave up god but kept the fundamentalism.
Here we have a group (the Anglicans) who are slowly working out that certain social attitudes (about women and gays), which have nothing at all to do with any real religious issues, are trapped in the text of the Bible like so many dead wasps trapped in amber. They are slowly trying to remove these attitudes from their own behavior. This process is slow because (as you have told us so often) it is hard and scary to challenge traditions that supposedly come from god, and it is harder still when you are trying to reform a system from within. It is also slow because because many of their number are unwilling to give these ideas up.
I am no fan of religion. (Maybe all those women and all those gays would be better off as atheists; and then the Anglican straight men would not have to worry about them. Oh, right, the Anglican straight men could be atheists, too!) But this trend in Anglicanism shows that many people in a variety of ways are escaping the ignorance of the past. Some a little, some a lot; and every little bit of enlightenment is good.
So what advice do the Enlightened LeoPardus and the Right Irreverent theBEattitude have for these people? Do they applaud that these Anglicans are having the courage to treat their womenfolk with respect? Do they commend these Anglicans for according their gay members the same benefit of sacraments as everyone else? Do they scoff at those who are doing a sideways shift to become Catholics, whole congregations at a time, in order to avoid the 21st century?
No! Not at all! Their advice is: “Don’t bother! If you are going to believe any part of an ancient religion then you must believe the whole without reservation or examination. Do not try to improve your own behavior unless you are willing to reject everything you believe. Do not at all costs attempt to modernize your religion by rejecting parts that are clearly ancient social mores rather than religious tenets. Do not follow your conscience unless your conscience leads you straight to atheism.”
Fundamentalist atheists! What a concept!
October 22, 2009 at 6:39 am |
But you know, there’s something wrong with the reporting style of that article that the Blogger was reporting on.
Quoted (and numbered, and comma’d, and linebroken for clarity:):
(1) “The number of Anglicans wishing to join the Catholic Church has increased in recent years,
(2) as the Anglican Church has welcomed the ordination of (a)women and (b)openly gay clergy and (c)blessed homosexual partnerships,
(3)said Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
What do you think that sounds like? The accusation against the blogger is weakened by the fact that the article itself seems to be proving the blogger’s point.
It’s a copypasta of about half the news on the corresponding CNN page. The missing lines don’t change the context of these statements.
October 22, 2009 at 8:53 am |
So what advice do the Enlightened LeoPardus and the Right Irreverent theBEattitude have for these people?
I’d say, get the hell out of your silly ass religion. Why pick and choose and modify and farble around with some ancient mythology? Or why not derive your silly religion from Shinto or Greek mythology as opposed to Hebrew mythology?
I’ll say it again, if you’re going to have a religion, then bloody well take it seriously. If you’re gonna modify it ad infinitum to suit your personal likes, dump it and just be a human.
October 22, 2009 at 10:10 am |
I in no way applaud human beings who justify bigotry with their religion. I only point to how equally ridiculous it is to believe in a God that justifies bigotry in the Bible and disagree with his teaching. Either be a blind bigot as God commands or discard the primitive teaching of this religion.
My main point here is that Christianity would be looked at as an extremist cult if people actually lived by the Bible’s teaching. Everyone would see Christianity for what it is; an irrelevant and archaic belief system.
Because Christianity continues to evolve with the changing culture and political correctness, it continues to be a thriving religion. I in no way applaud bigotry. But I am equally disappointed in people that ignore these terrible laws and teachings and continue to call themselves a Christian. People need to wake up and see the Bible for what it is. A collection of primitive and irrelevant texts.
October 22, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
theBEattitude:
Either be a blind bigot as God commands or discard the primitive teaching of this religion.
Because Christianity continues to evolve with the changing culture and political correctness, it continues to be a thriving religion.
You say that it is “ridiculous … to believe in a God that justifies bigotry in the Bible and disagree with his teaching.” But this is a contradiction only for someone who believes that everything in the Bible is unequivocally the word of god. These people obviously do not believe that; they understand the Bible in some other way.
And, in fact, that very ongoing evolution in the religion that so irks you is evidence that many Christians (probably the majority) do not believe that they are commanded to be blind bigots, but that they have a duty to use their minds not only to understand religious principles and traditions but also to apply new knowledge to religious matters as it becomes available; and to modify their religious practices in the light of new knowledge. That is why they do in fact discard the primitive parts of the teaching (either explicitly or by ignoring them) and actively practice only those principles which they consider timeless.
You or I, who do not believe in this or any god, are not in a position to say what their god demands of them. Even as a former believer in a different branch of Christianity, you still have no standing to define what their faith requires.
October 23, 2009 at 5:33 am |
Well that’s like saying living things either evolved or were created; ever heard of theistic evolution?
The majority of the religious are not biblical scholars with doctorate degrees. I bet half of them don’t know who Moses is. The other half will answer “isn’t he the dude in The Prince of Egypt?” Most of them are not aware of what you might call the glaring contradictions in their Holy Book. They go to church once a week, listen to a few quiet sermons, chat up with old friends, and return home feeling the peace of the holy spirit in their hearts.
Those who are aware of the flaws and errors in the Bible, otherwise known as liberals/moderates, have found…interesting ways to justify their beliefs that for the most part, are nothing more than an entertaining ad hoc argument.
The point is, yes, perhaps it is indeed ridiculous to believe in an omnipotent God who can create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift. However, we are all only human and therefore, cannot be demanded perfect logic and reasoning in everything that we do.
For millions of years, humans have been shaped by the forces of natural selection to survive in their environment. Unfortunately, a life reduced to absolute and perfect logic was not advantageous to the overall survival of the organism. Those who accepted the teachings of their parents and elders without question will fare better than those who doubts endlessly. It is not reasonable for one to expect an entire species to completely overcome their inner nature overnight, regardless of intelligence.
Your main concern here appears to be that those who proudly call themselves Christians are ignorant of the horrifying and contradictory doctrines of their own religion.
The most appropriate response would be: so what?
It doesn’t matter of Jesus really walked on water; aqua jets are faster.
It doesn’t matter if the world is created or not; its not going to solve anything.
It doesn’t matter if Adam and Eve are real; they’re dead even if they were.
What matters is that extremists are blowing things up left right and center.
What matters is that women and homosexuals are still facing discrimination in various parts of the world.
What matters is that pseudo-scientific “theories” are being force fed to guillible children by ID-iots around the world.
It is these matters that we, as in atheists AND the religious, should be spending our time on.
October 21, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
The stories in the Bible come from ancient patriarchal cultures – it isn’t a rulebook for all time. You have to try to understand the Bible in context. You can’t apply Hebrew Law, for example, to modern societies whole-cloth. It doesn’t work that way.
We don’t accept the Hebrew rulebook on eating shellfish or wearing clothes of different materials. We long ago gave up on what the Bible says about divorce.
The task of the church is to understand God’s word and then apply it to our current conditions.
October 22, 2009 at 6:28 am |
If that’s the case, the Church is wasting its time.
Remember that God knows his audience, and the Bible is filled with law that’s essentially based on the traditions of centuries ago. Very little of it would apply today.
Many believers claim the words of the Bible and God’s actions during that era is justified, because it was “the tradition at the time”.
And once again, that is then, this is now. It can be argued that to try to make the Bible apply today would be to try and reinstate feudal monarchy in countries that have since moved on to a democracy. >_>
October 22, 2009 at 10:42 am |
Why God hasn’t isnpired a new book then? A new revision of his previous work, a corrected edition.
October 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
The Muslims will tell you that he did.
October 22, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
So would Mormans.
October 22, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
Paul–
A few words from Jesus on the context of Old Testament law:
“Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) and “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
Matthew 15:3-4
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
Do you think disobedient children should be killed as it says in the law? Jesus did.
October 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm |
“Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) and “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
Matthew 5 verse 20 reads: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
By that Law we are clearly condemned as sinners. This is what Jesus means – in the eyes of God we can never measure up – and there is no way for us to live up to the letter of that law.
But Jesus intervened. By his death and resurrection he took our sin and made it good in the eyes of God. We are saved by this action, not by our ability to obey the laws of an ancient society.
In Matthew 15:3-4 Jesus is talking about money given to the temple instead of helping one’s parents. The Pharisees had declared that money given to the temple given in your parent’s name was as good as helping your parents as was required under Jewish law. Jesus said this was a mis-reading of the law.
Christians are not obliged to live under Hebrew law. But how Jesus interpreted that law allows us to use his example in analogous situations.
October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am |
The troubling thing is, some believers would rather reprimand and rebuke those who do not believe in God, than to help these absolutely misguided souls, their very own fellow worshippers, clean up their act. <_<
October 21, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
One man’s morality is another man’s mortality
October 22, 2009 at 5:16 am |
So it’s okay to leave a church which allows women equality and women can ( and should) be be allowed to lead a congregation, plus a place where homosexuals do not live in fear and shame, to join a church that’s riddled with pedophile abuse?
There REALLY is NO GOD, I tell you..
October 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
I don’t understand why you are saying the Catholic church hates gays. They tried to hide the fact that like 95% of their priests have been raping altar boys. Clearly they love gays! They are the most gay-friendly church in existence! Which makes it really strange that Anglicans who don’t want gays admitted to the clergy would join up with them. Maybe that’s just a cover and in reality these Anglicans are gay and the real reason these gay Anglicans want to join up with Rome is because they want Rome-style protection when they get caught wanking their altar boys.
October 25, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
rey “I don’t understand why you are saying the Catholic church hates gays. They tried to hide the fact that like 95% of their priests have been raping altar boys. Clearly they love gays! They are the most gay-friendly church in existence!”
I do hope that’s tongue-in-cheek, but repeating the “homo = pedo” meme just smears homosexuality, as the link is tenuous. People are far more complicated than a gross stereotype.
October 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
As for the comments “..not one jot or tittle will pass from the law…” the witness of certain Diatessaronic manuscripts witnesses that what Jesus actually sais was “not one jot or tittle will pass from my word…” When Catholicism was created by the Roman government to change Chrestianity (Marcionism) to Christianity (Catholicism) they changed “my word” to “the law” as part of changing Jesus from Yahweh’s opponent to his son.
October 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
Well, now you have to ask yourself what’s worse: whether Jesus vouched for the evils in the Old Testament or whether the entire credibility of the Bible is suspect.
There’s absolutely no way to tell for certain what’s been changed and what hasn’t. You also have to ask yourself how God would allow the only communication He has with modern men today to be compromised in such a way. If God is truly trying to convey something through the Bible, then it should persevere unchanged through the ages. At your own admission, this is not the case.
October 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
“Well, now you have to ask yourself what’s worse: whether Jesus vouched for the evils in the Old Testament or whether the entire credibility of the Bible is suspect. / There’s absolutely no way to tell for certain what’s been changed and what hasn’t. “ (Janus Grayden)
So because it is hard to tell exactly what all the Catholics changed, we should just give up and believe that the religion really did originally have the idea at its base that the Genocidal God of the OT who says in Malachi “I am Jehovah–I do not change!” changed without changing (this is what Christianity asserts) and is now a wonderful God of Infinite Love who loves everyone???? Sorry, but your mental weakness and slothfulness is not shared by me.
“If God is truly trying to convey something through the Bible, then it should persevere unchanged through the ages.” (Janus Grayden)
Which God? If there are two and they are in a war against one another, then it makes sense that the Bible will be messed up, right? Jesus Himself gives the parable of the tares (Matt 13) how he himself sows good seed in the field but while men sleep an enemy comes and sows bad seed. What is the field? What are the two seeds, but the words of two adversarial beings? Yes, there is an interpretation given for this parable, but it comes after an intervening parable and it is too ridiculous to credit.
Besides, this argument I am making is not based on the Bible alone, but on history. Historically it is a fact that before Catholicism there were numerous dualistic sects preaching Jesus. They just called him Jesus Chrestos instead of Jesus Christos, and they saw him as the son of a Better God and not of the Old Testament God. This is historical fact.
Catholic theologians from the 2nd and 3rd centuries inform us of these sects. Many of them try to place them later than they really were. The later Catholic writers try to claim, for example, that Marcion didn’t start his church until 144. But Justin Martyr, a Catholic writer who wrote in 138 tells us that Marcionites were in every nation under heaven by his time and that Marcion was “Still alive and still teaching” meaning Marcion has been active for a long time already and has spread his church everywhere long before the latter Catholic writers even want to admit he began preaching!
It is a fact that the original message of Christianity (or Chrestianity as it would have been called then) was Dualistic, teaching two adversarial Gods. Whether you want to believe that these gods really exist or not is your own business but the point is that this is the original beliefs of the religion before Rome created an official state-run church to change everything up and write a new bible.
October 24, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
These dualistic beliefs also continued for a very long time, at least to the 13th century, before being finally crushed by persecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
October 25, 2009 at 6:05 am |
It’s irritating to know that my ancestors who lost their land to Henry VIII (and Catherine de Medici) might have saved themselves the trouble. I should be enjoying the income from a nice manor or seigneurie right now. Phooey. Wonder if I can get the real estate back by abjuring my heretic forbears.