Archbishop of Canterbury Shuts the Door of the Cathedral to Orthodox Anglicans

The immaculate conception does not logically follow. In fact it only follows in the Roman church and it was very much even then up for debate before it was made infallible by the Pope.

As for Calvin here is a better link here.https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...ieved-in-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html
Also Zwingili thought the same PVM

 

I suspect Ananias thought it went without saying. But for some people, apparently not....

 

Only because “some people” recognized that mocking the CoE’s statement didn’t actually add anything to the argument. It was certainly clear enough what the core objection was: the perceived result of the CoE’s action, not their subsequent justification for it. I believe the foregoing was clear in the remainder of my reply that you quoted.

 

Would the fact that you are doubtful to the degree of 'laughing out loud', have any bearing on your being equally condemning of fornication commited by heterosexual couples where one is a minister in the church. Would you be equally, laughably sceptical to the face of your vicar, yet engaged to be married? Or even if he and his spouse claimed to have agreed to remain celebate in marriage, by quoting Rev. 14:3-5, as their reason for total abstension from conjugal union, even when married? Do you regard the institution of marriage merely as a licence from the church to have sexual relations, thus obtaining permission from God thus avoiding incurring the penalties for fornication or defilement?

It's as if I could hear your synically untrusting, hollow laughter echoing through the cloisters of the church, aimed at generations of the betrothed down through the ages, right back to Joseph and Mary.
.

 

I betook myself to my study and looked up some old commentaries on Matthew (Matthew Henry and a few others), and I have to eat my words: many early Protestant theologians -- even beyond the ones already mentioned -- did, in fact, hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary to at least some degree. (I am struck how many seem to resort to the "they were cousins or step-siblings" argument without any scriptural, linguistic, or text-critical evidence, though.)

I may blame this on medievalist theological residue (Mariology fades quickly among Protestants as the years go by after the Reformation), but I cannot deny that theologians whose opinions I respect did hold to it.

Anyway -- I've dereailed this thread enough. I just wanted to say that I concede the point that some orthodox Protestants do, in fact, hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Erroneously, I believe, but they do.

 

I personally can't see that it matters a jot whether she did or whether she didn't after marriage. I'd regard it as grossly ungentalmanly to speculate.
.

 

Yes, a homosexual couple is exactly like Joseph and Mary. (My eyes just rolled out of my head; pardon me while I go retrieve them.)

Homosexuals cannot be married; it is an impossibility. Therefore their state of celibacy hardly matters in this context one way or the other: their union is sinful in its nature, not in its physical manifestation (or lack thereof). Even a heterosexual couple cohabitating absent marriage would not be allowed for a minister of the Gospel (or should not be; I'm sure the liberals make allowances for this also). But at least the heterosexual couple can marry and resolve the issue (after repenting of their sin); the homosexual couple has no such recourse.

And to say that we must assume the men are celibate in spite of their yearnings is just ridiculous. No one actually believes it, any more than they'd believe a man and woman in the same situation. The ridiculousness is doubled when you consider that the men have already shown themselves ungodly and untrustworthy by declaring themselves homosexuals to begin with. The best way to avoid sexual temptation is to remove oneself from it, not to set up housekeeping with the object of ones desire.

But let's argue, however ridiculously, that these men truly are being celibate. Homosexuality is forbidden, and that is not limited just to the physical manifestation of that condition, just as fornication is a sin regardless of whether the physical act is carried out (Matt. 5:28).

 

Some here might find this discussion of Blackstone’s Commentaries to be enlightening with regard to the topic at hand:

If I’m understanding the way these rules work, Blackstone’s common law would certainly allow jurisdictions bent on breaking up gay marriages to do so by prosecuting the offending partners and obtaining “sentences of separation” that declared their unions henceforth void. But it would not view gay partners as incapable of marrying in the first place. In this contract-centered view, gay marriages might be sinful, but they would be nevertheless “esteemed valid to all civil purposes, unless such separation is actually made during the life of the parties.” p. 422. Obviously that’s a long way from marriage equality. Then again, it is also far from what seems to be the main argument these days against gay marriage, namely that marriage between partners of the same sex is in some way just not a marriage at all (in Blackstone’s terms, void ab initio).
​

I recommend reading the full post, as well as, of course, Blackstone himself (who was, incidentally, an Anglican). Properly interpreting Blackstone is important because of the strong intellectual influence he had on the Founders and Framers, as well as the fact that American common law is simply a continuation of the English common law of the colonial era. (It also bears pointing out here that what we’re talking about is not marriage specifically but a civil partnership.)

 

If this were a discussion of civil law, this would be meaningful. As it concerns Divine law, it's not really relevant. Christian marriage is far beyond civil tort jurisprudence. (Which is to say: a civil judge may declare two men, or two women, or three men, or a man and a table-leg, to be married all they please; it carries no theological or episcopal weight.)

This is a point the referenced article* argues itself:

*I recognized this link, having seen it argued pro and con many times before.

 

I was not aware that this thread was restricted to discussing divine law. Is that specified somewhere? The discussion began with criticism of the appointment of a priest in a civil partnership to a deanery. Somehow the discussion subsequently shifted to yet another culture war debate on gay marriage (in which I have no interest in participating). If that move is legitimate, it seems to me that the reverse is as well. In the case at hand, Blackstone is relevant to debating the (in my view, highly questionable) assertion made above that gay marriage is an “impossibility”. To be fair, what you’re saying would be relevant if the dean and his civil partner had been married in a CoE ceremony, but they weren’t so it isn’t.

 

Is this not an Anglican board where Anglicans discuss Anglican theology? Or did it morph recently into a lex civilis board when I wasn't looking? I realize that the CofE is an established religion, but God's law supercedes man's law even in England. Christian law forbids homosexual relationships; the Canterbury appointment is permitting a gross sin in allowing a practicing homosexual to become dean. The marriage/civil-ceremony angle is a fig leaf (and a poor one at that).

To put a fine point on it: we are not talking about the consensus of human legislatures here, but the commandments of our eternal Lord and King. We disobey at the peril of our own souls. Affirmation of sin is sin; countenance of evil is evil.

 

The appointment of a CoE dean in a civil partnership has nothing at all to do with Anglican theology, and we discuss issues of secular law and political philosophy as they pertain to matters of interest to Anglicans on this Forum all the time. It’s clear that you’re upset that the CoE appointed a dean that you believe is violating CoE canons. If it’s true that he is indeed violating the rules he took an oath to obey, then the very worst thing we can say about the situation is that it is a failure of discipline (even if we happen to disagree with the rule in question), not doctrine. We can all agree that people acting in good faith ought to obey the rules of the organizations to which they belong. Why gay marriage and fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible were dragged into the discussion remains unclear. In the case at hand, it’s not my diocese, it’s not even my country. I don’t have strong feelings about it one way or another, and even if it is a problem, it isn’t mine to solve, so it’s hard to get upset about it from either direction. If it’s any consolation, I’m quite sure the CoE statement angered those who want the Church to pursue a more openly permissive policy as much as it did those who think things have already gone too far.

 

I do not agree with this. A civil union is not a marriage. A civil union is a legal state which grants certain rights to the members, such as the property right of survivorship, the right of one partner to act on the other's behalf and make decisions that legally bind both members, the right of hospital visitation similar to that of a spouse, and so on. There is nothing inherently sinful about a contractual relationship of this nature. If it were merely a platonic relationship, there would be nothing wrong or sinful about the union.

However, the participants in a civil union rarely (almost never) form such a union for merely platonic motivations. When either one willingly engages in (and encourages feelings of) lust for the same-sex partner, he (or she) commits sin in the heart. And of course going further physically is obviously sinful also. Every rational person in modern society understands and knows that civil unions are the "work-around" used by gay couples when marriage between them is not legally recognized, and every rational person also knows that the intentions underlying 99.9% of these union include sexual conduct between the parties. In fact, gay partners in civil unions commonly refer to themselves as spouses (husbands or wives) much as married heterosexual couples do. Frankly, anyone who would assume that no "hanky-panky" is taking place within a civil union is either naive or silly. So even though I don't agree that a civil union is "sinful in its nature," for all practical purposes we know that civil unions are highly suggestive of, and an exceptionally strong indicator of the presence of actual, ongoing, unrepentant sin.

 

theology
noun

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

It seems to me that the CoE's action in this case has a great deal to do with our understanding of God, His expectations for man and for His church, and a very important religious question (i.e.: is a person who lives in a relationship that is highly suggestive of sinfulness eligible for a leadership position in the church?). I have already quoted pertinent scriptures which strongly indicate that the fellow's appointment is contrary to God's word and will and, therefore, contrary to sound Christian theology.

 

With respect, I genuinely do not see what the definitions you cited have to do with the topic at hand. Theology in its most basic form is speech about God, or more broadly, God and his works. It’s one thing to affirm that other disciplines have some connection to, or implications for, theology, and vice versa. But it’s a stretch, to put it mildly, to claim that all those other things are theology. Not one article of the Nicene Creed has been denied or obscured by the CoE as a result of this appointment. To disagree with it is one thing, and people can certainly debate the pros and cons; but for anyone to assert that it is a theological matter, going right to the heart of the Faith, is indicative of a distinct loss of healthy perspective, in my view.

 

As usual in here the issue under discussion is highjacked and turned into a bigotted rant against unorthodox sexual orientation. THE ISSUE was CELEBACY and whether those claiming to be celebate or assumed to be celebate ACTUALLY can be trusted to be truthful about it. In the terms of the ISSUE being discussed a 'homosexual couple' IS exactly like Joseph and Mary during the time it is claimed they were CELEBATE. Unless in the mind of those considering that ISSUE of celebacy, there exists a tendency towards turning EVERY consideration in the context of homosexual relationships into a rant against their greatest fear of abomination.
.

 

What can we do when we agree with and LIKE the first paragraph but feel somewhat ambivalent about some of the assertions in the second but not enough to feel compelled to refute them or enter into debate about it.
.

 

Well, I already explained how the definition I cited bears upon the topic at hand. But I think you'd prefer to draw a narrower definition of the word.

Look, even if we say that theology is no more than 'speech about God and His works', the Bible is one of His works. So any time the church does something contrary to scripture, it bears on theology. In this case, the church appointed to leadership a person whose life choices disqualify him from meeting the criteria for leadership specified in the Bible. Bingo, it's an issue which bears upon orthodox theology.

I doubt I can make it any simpler or clearer.

But really, I think your definition is too narrow; under the definition I offered this matter very easily comes under the 'theology' umbrella. I at least cited a dictionary's definition, whereas you seem to have offered no citation for the more limited definition you prefer.

 

How exactly does being a partner in a civil partnership, if avowedly celebate, disqualify him from that specified in The Bible?

Would it be a lack of children? It says HE must have children and THEY must be well behaved. There are many in positions of leadership in the church who are neither husbands of wives or have children. The RC church is FULL of 'em. According to those same Biblical qualifications THEY shouldn't technically be in the job.
.

 

That’s quite a stretch, in my view. I in fact cited the etymology (‘theo’+‘logos’ = ‘words about god/the gods’), which has been the basis of all subsequent definitions. The word theologia itself first occurs in Plato in reference to Homer’s epic poems, which at that time were not read privately but recited aloud publicly. The stories about the gods, viz., the details of who they were, what they did, etc., were ‘theology’. There’s nothing “narrow” about that. An account of human (rather than divine) behavior and morality is not, properly speaking, theology, whether it occurs in the Bible or not. A person who thinks theology ought to include a full account of human behavior will no doubt consider the traditional understanding to be “narrow”, but that doesn’t alter the fact that such contortions of the word’s basic meaning are themselves an unprecedented innovation. What the appointment of a dean in a civil partnership (on the assumption that he is living chastely) has to do with any of the articles of the Creed is a mystery. The rest of what I have already written above is clear and speaks for itself.