Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

What Set says.


I've tried before, Foxfyre, to point at the difference between sacraments and holy acts/sacramental acts.

I admit that my knowledge is just from religion classes at school, some university courses (in history) and websites.
At least in the Roman Catholic Church, there's a big difference between these two.

THe Anglicans however, Walter, do list marriage as one of the sacraments but not one required for Christians. Where you see 'sacramental acts', it is followed by "minor sacraments'. That is clear in the posts I posted. If you agree with Setanta, that's fine. I don't.

You see, Foxfyre, all that is part of Canon LAW. And law is precise, it means what it says: minor sacraments are no sacraments, otherwise they would be called so.


To give you another quotation, from the main page, 'Faith', of Liverpool Cathedral

They don't even mention the other holy acts on that site.



Your above adds to my confusion.

That's OK, Walter, it proceeds from her confusion, so it's to be taken for granted.

Canon law is required for all persons of that particular faith, Walter, and, while I cannot remember as it has been too long since I've looked at them, I believe there are only two sacraments written into Canon Law of the Anglican Church.

There is no canon law requiring Anglicans to be married, ordained, receive unction, etc.; however these are still sacraments. I have never suggested they are part of canon law. That came up in Setanta's rants in which he drew assumptions of my intent based on nothing other than his own ill temper directed at me.

The basis and requirements for marriage when Anglicans marry is written into Canon Law but this is in a different category from the issue of sacraments.

I will refer you back to the links I posted supporting marriage as a sacrament.

Would it help to hear it from an Anglican? Marriage is a sacrament. Ask any bishop, priest, deacon, or lay reader, and they will tell you that marriage is a sacrament.

So far, so good, more or less . . .



Don't let a little thing like the truth stand in your way. You continue to insist that what the Anglican church considers sacramental acts, but not sacraments, are, in fact sacraments. Good god, talk about pig-headed. This has nothing to do with any assumptions about your intent--and your remark about ill-temper directed at you (oh, poor suffering martyr) is made all the more ridiculous by describing what i have written here as rants. I was not ranting in the thread which was the genesis of your latest stalking horse, and when you made your silly and unsupportable contention there, i did not even bother to respond. Because you had not supported your contention, and it was silly. This topic has been re-engaged because you brought it up here. Your conceit, your know-it-all attitude toward questions of religion would not let it lie. You had to make a contention that i had "run off into the tall grass," inferentially defeated by your superior knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. I ignored you in the genesis thread because you had, as usual, made a statement from authority, and had, as usual provided support which was in fact no support for your contention.

We wouldn't be going over all of this again if you had not decided in your silly, know-it-all way, to contend that you had achieved a rhetorical victory to which you did not attain, and to which you are incapable of attaining.



So that one wonders why you keep bringing it up.



Your first link is to a single congregation of the Anglican church in Adelaide, South Australia. Most people who are reasonable will understand why i say this is not an authority for the Anglican church, the web site for which i have already quoted and linked in these pages.

Your second link is for the Church of Ireland. We are discussing the Anglican Church. It's single reference to the definition of marriage as a sacrament quotes The Anglican Church of Canada News. People who are reasonable will understand why i say this is not an authority for the Anglican church, the web site for which i have already quoted and linked in these pages.

Your third link is for a blog site--jeebus save us, it just gets loonier--people who are reasonable will understand why i say this is not an authority for the Anglican church, the web site for which i have already quoted and linked in these pages. People who are perceptive will note that the blog site is a venue for ranting on the gay marriage issue, and understand that such a source fails the cui bono test.

You have, typically, allowed your overwhelming conceit (that which lead you, when you first appeared at this site, to contend that others in a thread should listen to you because you are well-informed and well-educated, the obvious inference being that you considered all of the rest of us not to be well-informed and well-educated; i won't even canvas the issue of just how well-educated and well-informed the content of your contributions to these fora actually make you appear to be), to suggest to you that you were the mistress of information not vouchsafed to others, and that you would scorn and enlighten them at once. You have hit the "I'm the victim of personal attacks" panic button here much more quickly than is usually the case, and it doesn't surprise me. Whenever you start spouting your statements from authority and scorning others as ignorant, and are subsequently shot down due to your native inability to sustain your point in debate and provide credible evidence for your contentions, you immediately retreat behind your favorite screen, martyrdom. Poor, poor Fox, so omniscient, so scorned, so put upon, but so noble and virtuous. Have a nice life Fox, i intend to hitherto dispense with any discussion of religious doctrine with you--you've already demonstrated both your ignorance of the subject and your inability to support your contentions. None of which will, of course, ever interfer with your belief in your superior knowledge and understanding. You are, truly, a legend in your own mind.

Actually, I really don't mind what others say - as I Catholic, I've my seven sacraments, I could easily give you the one or other (especially, when I would add sacramental ceremonies like the St. Blasius blessing).

I've tried to give some 'highly situated' links from the Anglican Church.

For my part, I stop this discussion now (which, indeed was educational, since I got now a quite reasonable knowledge about the Anglican faith and an idea, what e.g. teachers in that faith know).

Through the intercession of St. Blasius, Bishop and Martyr, may you be protected from afflictions of the mind brought on by Fox . . .

(I don't have two candles to cross against your throat, Walter, so please just imagine that on your own . . .)

Thanks, I'm sure, it works as good with and without candles. (As I child, I always wanted to know, btw, how those were made :wink: )

...dreams and reality. Too bad no one knows what's what.

As Brandy, whom I assume is Anglican, was ignored re the sacrament of marriage, I looked for further links. There are a lot.

Here are two:





No matter how one attempts to stretch the definitions or semantics to deny that marriage is not considered a sacrament by the Anglican church, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Anglicans do consider marriage to be a sacrament, though one not required for all Anglicans.

I did as Brandy ask



According to The Assistant Chaplain General, Germany,(by phone) there are two sacraments in the Anglican Church.

This was confirmed by The Anglican Chaplaincy of Bonn & Cologne (by email).

You shouldn't waste your time Walter. Fox has a pathological fear of gay marriage. She seems to think that it will devalue her own marriage (which seems to imply that it doesn't have much intrinsic worth--rather an odd position to take). She will not stop at hysteria in her desparation to prove that gay marriage must never, never, never be allowed. The issue of sacraments arose, it is important to remember, in the "The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic" thread.

I think that some posters are putting each other in categories labled "people I always disagree with".

Goodness - what an interesting question - is marriage a sacrament.

I am utterly iggerant on this - but here is what wordnet thinks:

"sacrament


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun
1. a formal religious act conferring a specific grace on those who receive it; the Protestant sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper; in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church there are seven traditional rites accepted as instituted by Jesus: baptism and confirmation and Holy Eucharist and penance and holy orders and matrimony and extreme unction."


The first definition I looked at just used marriage as an EXAMPLE of a sacrament!

It DOES - in my ignorance - make me wonder if there might be a doctrinal difference on this between "High" and "Low" Anglicans?

The question is whether or not it is a sacrament in the Anglican church, which is what Thomas and i were discussing when Fox had her hissy fit . . . read your definition again: ". . . the Protestant sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper;"

It DOES - in my ignorance - make me wonder if there might be a doctrinal difference on this between "High" and "Low" Anglicans?


Or is it a "deal-maker" between Roman Catholicism and (Eastern orthodoxy) vs all Protestant sects - like transubstantiation and consubstantiation?

(I assume even the highest Anglicans are consubstantionists?)

I don't think your remark could refer to me/my posts here.

You see, I just wanted to know, what's all about, from where the differences come etc.

So it really could be that I misinterpreted the textes on e.g. the official website of the Church of England, the Cathedral of Liverpool etc; that the encyclodiae resources were not correct etc etc

So I just took Brandy's kind advice and asked.