Traditional Anglicans Welcome Vatican Announcement With Joy

can we take it that this thread is no longer about the Church of England and it's affinity to the Roman Catholic Church.

@Tpia: « #30 on: Today at 02:48:44 AM » 
How? You said its no biggie if God change His mind in not a single direction, as to accomplish an objective; in Judaism He allows stonying of fornicators and adultery people, then all of a sudden He scrap all of that out, and yet it is still a sin or is it not a sin, anymore?. I said this is big deal; a biggie. And of course, read the condition of changes; Jewish God says He is One; Yahweh, Jehovah and we find Jesus said Eloi. How come there are three gods, aburo? Or Jesus was also the Eloi that he clearly called upon?

Shall Tpia be calling on Tpia when she knows she is clearly in need of relief?
 
 
 
@Nezan (m): « #31 on: Today at 10:59:33 AM » 
I am a yoruba man; if i were to have lived in Ijebu Ode all my life, when I read Irinke rindo by Fagunwa or Ounjo, my pronounciation of the same wording in Ijebu accent will sound very different from Ile Ife people or Modakeke, or Gbongan, or Ibadan or Oyo and definitely from Owo, Akure, Onod, Ikare and the whole of Ekiti! Yet we are all yorubas. You get my drift? Even the ekiti people know each locality's accent!



My point exactly, since you listed bahia, and others as Muslim (read Viaro and learn good argument process; the yorubas say that what is similar is used in comparing and contrasting on a matter), then it is normal to list Church of satan for Christianity. Afterall, they all have "church" in them!

olabowale stop confusing yourself and going into hysterics.

very informative thread

This is why I'm so convinced that knocking your brainless head for 72 virgins ain't doing you much good. Take a look:


Now olabowale, can you show me any single line where I ever claimed that I knew enough of Islam? I did not make any such claims _{(which was why I had requested a private chat with Nezan).}

You lying mooncalf! Did I not say that I didn't need to visit any websites to know that there are muslims who lie to the world and themselves? WHERE in this thread did I ever make any such claims that you alleged in your reply above? You're a confirmed lunatic lying schmo . . can't even stay on course to make an honest line.

The catholic church is the left arm of Satan and the Anglican church is the right arm of Satan. There is no diference, both are the same tool for mind control.

Apart from the papacy there is basically nothing differant in the beleifs of roman catholics,nestorians,oriental orthodox,eastern orthodox and anglican churches.

They all practice the veneration of saints i.e they ask these saints to pray 4 them they same way ptotestants ask their pastotrs to pray 4 them.

They all use images,with the exception of anglicans the  all have at least 73 books in their can unlike the protestants that have 66 books .

Even they honour given to mary by the eastern orthodox christians is more than that of te roman cathoics.These religious groups combines today constitutes more than 70 percent of the world christian population

it seems the major difference and obstacle to unity btw the catholics and anglicans from which all other differences arise viz praying to mortals etc is the catholic theory of papal infallibility.One wondeers how any thinking man can subscribe to that belief.

Well, I don't know much about people subscribing to any belief one way or another; but I'd rather say we can let people hold their beliefs without thinking that our own are superior to theirs. Let's just say we are different. My 2 shillings.

Thanks for making more sense of this issue

Keep your mouth shut if dont know what to say!

No doubt it is.

However, as has been observed, not every Anglican prays to Mary; and some who do so are not speaking on behalf of "all" Anglicans. One cannot claim that 'ALL' Anglicans do this or the other simply by looking at only "some" who do so - there are many Anglicans who do not follow the doctrines of Catholic anglicanism.

I think you're completely missing the point. Completely.

Think about it for a moment: what makes some churches 'Anglican' and yet differ from 'Anglican'? Is it not differences in doctrine? For whatever you may argue, at least it should be clear to you that several people here who raise objections do so on doctrinal grounds and not on relationships to any Canterbury.

Although I do not have the vantage point of speaking for Anglicans (myself being neither Catholic nor Anglican), the point is simply that not all Anglicans are to be cast in the Catholic mold. Foundational to this is the fact that doctrine is at the heart of what identifies any particular group - where they take orders from is simply a secondary issue.

Take the example of the Episcopal Church. We know that body is the Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and parts of Europe (besides several other countries). The question, therefore, is whether a particular church as 'Anglican' is in the "Communion" (i.e., 'Anglican Communion'). As such, Episcopalians (which is the same as 'Anglican Communion' in the USA) do NOT pray to Saints nor ask Saints to intercede for them with God. Some may confuse this position and try to misquote some sources to argue that Anglicans pray to Saints, but that is just not going to cut it. Certainly, some Anglicans within the Communion pray to Saints; but that does not hold true for MAJORITY of Anglicans (i.e., Episcopalians).

On the question of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 'Anglican Communion' officially recognizes that some Anglican Churches are actually 'Anglican' even though they may not receive their orders from Canterbury. So I do not risk misquoting them, this is how they put it:

It is entirely possible for a church to be in full communion with the Anglican Church without being in the Anglican Communion. It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury

Again, while you're correct in pointing out that 'Anglican' may mean an administrative body that takes its orders penultimately from the Archbishop of Canterbury; that is not representative of the majority of other truly Anglican churches that do not take orders from the See of Canterbury. These latter are sometimes known as either Anglican or Episcopalian - and they do NOT hold the Roman Catholic traditions already identified on several counts.

My answer to both questions: NO.

But isn't that the point that has gone before us already? The point is that some Anglicans do not represent all Anglicans; so it is not quite appropriate to speak in general terms that 'Anglicans' do this and that without giving any consideration to those who identify as Anglicans and yet differ on that assumption.

I dare mention that the way you stated that was quite misleading. Please see what you had argued from the very first reply post #1 on the previous page. Between the Catholic and Anglican churches, you had stated that "doctrinally they are the same." That is something which many Anglicans as Anglican object to - and to recently direct your "hiding behind the blanket term Anglicans" at dgreatrock is equally misleading. One may argue that you had assumed too far a generalised position of what is 'Anglican' without due consideration to the fact that there is a MAJORITY of Anglicans that are grossly misrepresented by your assumptions.


I don't see how outlining clear distinctions should be seen as getting petty. When you assumed that "doctrinally they are the same", those who objected have shown that they do not agree with that assumption.

Yes it is the prayer book of that Church/Diocese.
Such does not exist in dioceses/province of the church of nigeria.
Hence i posited that those folks do not represent the view of the majority of Anglicans!