Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:There is a distinction between communion and authority, but that distinction can be discarded when the point of contention is based on advice with respect to child-rearing. It doesn't matter that adherents to the faith are permitted to ignore any advice given from overseas. What matters is that the advice is given with the intent that it will have an affect on those who hear it.

You do realize that the Church of England doesn't tell us how to do anything in the US right? Any and all advice is given by the Episcopal Church of the USA. I have never once received anything that has the stamp of approval on it from the CoE. They don't bother with giving out suggestions or advice to other churches, that isn't their job.

Yeesh... nervously backs out of thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:The A of C has a moral authority. That's why the Nigerian Church keeps banging on at him to stop the American Church from appointing gay bishops.

Only in states like Iran do religions have legal authority.

While the AoC is considered the first among equals among the primates of the respective churches he can't interfere in any national church. He can pout and sip his tea all day long, but he can't stop the American church, or any other church, from deciding internal matters. This is why many Anglicans are leaving the AC in droves for the Roman Catholic Church, because there is no authority, per se, in the AC.

JEB_Stuart wrote:You do realize that the Church of England doesn't tell us how to do anything in the US right? Any and all advice is given by the Episcopal Church of the USA. I have never once received anything that has the stamp of approval on it from the CoE. They don't bother with giving out suggestions or advice to other churches, that isn't their job.

Their missions to Africa disagree.

The Church of England has no legal (actual law or canonical) control over the US Episcopal Church for a variety of reasons (not the least of which that they were not actualy started by the Church of England, but via Scotland)

At best they can say the rest of the church is walking apart from the US Episcopal Church. Interesting how missions from African diocese have set up churches here. Thats likely how it will end. Many of the southern and western churches diocese have already broken to be independent or sign on with African diocese. Very interesting.

In the immortal words of Scotty. "Its all so EXCITING!"

reds8n wrote: Wait so the Catholic Church doesn't actively campaign against the use of condoms and birth control devices in countries outside Rome ? Really ?

Moral authority, no legal authority. Which goes back to the billboard. It has a legal authority backing it, whereas a church sign only has a private group backing it.

reds8n wrote:American churches weren't withholding $ unless abstinence was taught as the only form of contraception.

No, they don't pay taxes, so I don't really understand what you mean here... If you are referring to missionaries then that is their choice. They pay to send the missionaries abroad, and those are representatives of that church. Just like a nation wouldn't send a representative who advocated someone else's point to the UN, so a church won't send a missionary who disagrees with the church in to the missions field.

reds8n wrote:Rubbish. Explain how a sign would prevent them from doing so. Is it a magic sign that overrides ALL forms of communication or soemthing ? Wow must get me one.

So why should the parent have to teach their children about something that they don't feel is appropriate at such an early age? How does that make sense at all? If a parent wants to protect their children and not teach them about the cruelty of this world, if only to protect their innocence and childhood that much longer, then they shouldn't be forced to start early. This sign puts the burden on the parent to explain rape, and what it means, etc.

reds8n wrote:
it's more you just won't see the logic. I'll dumb it down for you.

The churches have many form of income, much of which is through the renting and leasing of properties. Money from that, whther you like it or not, goes to the churches.

Maybe in the UK, but here in the US, churches cannot have a form of income, other then donations. That is required in the Federal tax code so that they maintain their tax free status.

reds8n wrote:
Your talking out your arse again with regards to the CoE as well.

The Archbishop can, for well publicised example, remove individuals, or indeed groups/churches from the CoE 's "rule" if they do something the synod doesn't approve of. Like gay priests for example.

But not from another of the communion's churches, which is what I said. Please read the post properly, I never said the AoC has no authority over the CoE, he simply has no authority over other churches of the communion.

reds8n wrote:Technically at a synod they can pass a legislative measure which the Monarch via Parliament can approve and therefore become law.

That applies only to England, not the rest of the UK, much less the rest of the Anglican Communion. You are applying something that is irrelevant to what I said.

reds8n wrote:You really don't know what youre talking about it seems.

I do, you just aren't reading my posts properly.

reds8n wrote:I neither believe you nor care.

Wow, civility has been tossed out your window apparently.

Hmmmm. Tough one.

I would say that at least it opens dialog between parents and their kids. (Some parents definition of 'ready' may be far too late). If the parents REALLY want to brush off the subject they can say something like 'I'll tell you when you're older.'

so I don't really understand what you mean here.

You claimed that they" don't tell people in other countries how this or that is best for their children". As part of continuing attempts to get you to see the outright BS of thats statement I was raising the issue of both the Catholic Churchs many and well documented claims about contraception and various American churchess refusal to hand over collected $s unless provision X/Y?Z etc was endorsed or followed. There is no way you can sit there and say this does not impact upon people in the way you claimed in all seriousness.

So why should the parent have to teach their children about something that they don't feel is appropriate at such an early age?

They don't. A simple "don't worry about it darlin'" or whatever trite phrase you say to your precious artifact child when the other 3,245 that offend or worry them come up. "fear and worry".. hyperbole FTW.

Maybe in the UK, but here in the US, churches cannot have a form of income, other then donations. That is required in the Federal tax code so that they maintain their tax free status.

Ah. Over here the CoE is one of the biggest land owners, and landlords. see here they get left loads in wills etc each year as well.

That applies only to England, not the rest of the UK, much less the rest of the Anglican Communion. You are applying something that is irrelevant to what I said.

A. No it isn't restricted onLy to England when it comes to the HoP in the majority of issues. By possibly affecting the law of the country then.. you need me to draw the rest of those dots together for you. And no, I'm again pointing out another error in what you oh so confidentally asserted as a fact even though it is not.

Wow, civility has been tossed out your window apparently.

there's none so blind as those who won't see I believe the expression goes.