Anglican Issues with the Catholic Church

[GKC]

I’m a bystander on these issues but I have read and observed the following:

I think that the ECA’s argument re homosexuality is that many acts were forbidden in the OT which are no longer forbidden; women had to prove rape with witnesses in those days, among other things, thus the OT forbidding of homosexuality does not automatically make it a sin.

Also the ‘hounding’ and ‘sues parishes’ refers to the attempt of those departing to* take the very valuable land and buildings with them-*-both entities belong to the already established Episcopal dioceses and the ECA (Epis Church of America) at large. If this is sustained in court, then any dissident group could walk away with the original groups land and buildings, a very dangerous precedent… just imagine a breakaway group in an RCC church, aligning itself with one of many dissident Catholic groups, suing to leave AND take the building and grounds with it!

The claim that ECUSA makes with respect to owning (that is, that the parish holds in trust) the property of the parishes is one proclaimed by ECUSA, without regard for who may actually hold title to land or real estate. In other words, it’s ECUSA’s because 815 2nd Ave. says it is. In general, the lands, and real estate were procured, built and paid for by the individual parishes. By fiat, the corporate Church claims right to it. In some cases (as in Virginia) parishes which predate not only ECUSA itself, but the United States as well, with title and deeds orginating in colonial times, in the name of the parish, are sued to allow ECUSA to take title.

It remains to be seen how universally successful this approach will be in the secular courts. Many parishes, lacking ECUSA bottemless coffers, and pitbull attitudes, walk away. Others fight. More power to them.

And the NT references to homosexuality?

GKC

 

[jay29]

thus the OT forbidding of homosexuality does not automatically make it a sin.

This is were they screwed up:

Moral and Natural Law never go away.

St.Paul CLEARLY condemns homosexuality:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” - *Romans 1:27

*Condemned in the OT and NT as well as the Early Church and all of Church History.

They are wrong as it gets.

 

[CatherineJones]

They insist on using the 1928 BCP. They do not recognize the ordination of women, and they do recognize all 7 sacraments. The one thing that puzzles me is this. Doesn’t recognizing all 7 sacraments directly contradict the 39 Articles? Perhaps someone more learned than myself would be so kind as to enlighten me.

I’m not much of a theologian, more a clinician; I don’t remember details irrelevent to my daily work. GCK corrects me on that type of stuff.

I was taught by parish priest that the Anglican articles could be interrpetted in a catholic light. For instance, the Eucharist was not made for Eucharistic adoration (or something like that) can be interpretted as emphasis, not that Eucharistic adoration should not occur.

Of course, by catholic, the Anglo-Catholic understanding of the articles of religion is catholic in the sense of agreeable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Catholic in the papal sense. Would have to re-read to see what they have to say, if anything, about the pope.

The interesting thing in this is that while Common Cause, the union of Forward in Faith and the continuing Anglican churches who want to be part of the Anglican Communion new province–orthodox province in the US-- is using the 39 articles as confessional, at least one of the most important players in drafting the paperwork was the parish priest who assured me they may be understood as completely catholic.

 

[1234]

The claim that ECUSA makes with respect to owning (that is, that the parish holds in trust) the property of the parishes is one proclaimed by ECUSA, without regard for who may actually hold title to land or real estate. In other words, it’s ECUSA’s because 815 2nd Ave. says it is. In general, the lands, and real estate were procured, built and paid for by the individual parishes. By fiat, the corporate Church claims right to it. In some cases (as in Virginia) parishes which predate not only ECUSA itself, but the United States as well, with title and deeds orginating in colonial times, in the name of the parish, are sued to allow ECUSA to take title.

It remains to be seen how universally successful this approach will be in the secular courts. Many parishes, lacking ECUSA bottemless coffers, and pitbull attitudes, walk away. Others fight. More power to them.

And the NT references to homosexuality?

GKC

I don’t know anything re NT references to homosexuality.

Did Jesus ever mention it? I think that if he thought it important, he would have. He talked about a lot of other things.

I still think that it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow renegades to walk away with very valuable land and property, no matter what they think is theirs or how justified they think they are. Precedent is very important in law and I suspect that the courts will think so, too.

 

[1234]

Actually, a lot has to do with social context. I have seen priests referred to as both Father (or Reverend) and Doctor (if they have a doctorate). Likewise, I have seen M.D.s referred to as Mr. and Mrs. in some social settings.

That being said, this is probably not one of the contexts where that would be an issue.

–
Bill

Those must be unusual social settings. Usually in informal social settings, the doctorates are introduced by their first names.

But we are referring to PB Schori in her official capacity and therefore a proper title is appropriate.

When I refer to the pope, I refer to the pope, not to “Ratzinger” or “Karl”…

The presiding bishop is just that and so’s the pope, until proven otherwise…

 

[1234]

In general it is considered polite to refer to someone by their proper title. Refusing to do so generally implies that at a minimum, one is unwilling to have polite discourse with the person professing the title.

In the case of Katherine Schori, the one issue that comes up is that for many people, myself included, there is a reasonable case to be made for conscientious objection to do so. The ordination of women in the Episcopal Church was widely understood to be illegal to begin with and the elevation of the same to the episcopacy was doubly so. People who feel strongly about this should not be expected to use such titles. However they should recognize that such a refusal may largely preclude any dialogue about such issues.

For myself, I would sooner walk out of a service than be in the same room with any woman who professes to have received ordination to the Episcopal priesthood or elevation to the Episcopacy. I would not greet nor knowingly grant obeisance to any male bishop who had ordained women to any such role. This necessarily places me at the extreme fringes of the continuing Church movement within the Episcopal Church.

Who widely understands that the ordination of women is illegal?

Why are you still in the Episcopal Church?

Hasn’t anyone on this thread ever heard of diplomacy? Would if the diplomatic corps of the USA refused to address our countries hated enemies by their official titles?

If you care so much, you should FIND OUT THE GENDER of the priest/bishop presiding at the services you so reluctantly attend.

Or better yet, get out.

Then, no diplomacy will be required, as apparently none is forthcoming.

 

[1234]

From a Catholic pov, it really shouldn’t matter if we call +KJS “Bishop” or “Presiding Bishop” since we technically don’t recognize the orders of any Anglican Bishop. That makes it merely a polite contrivance to refer to them by their ‘official’ titles. For that matter, when I was an Episcopalian, I had a hard time thinking that Methodist Bishops were real Bishops. I still called them “Bishop”, though.

I can certainly see as a conservative Anglican how the case could be made to refuse to refer to the Presiding Bishop as a Bishop (or ordained minister, PERIOD). I felt the same way prior to my trek across the Tiber.

So refer to them as “Bishop”

as in,

“Bishop” Schori, or:

“Presiding Bishop” Schori.

Do you call rabbis, “Rabbi”?

Or you could refer to Schori as “so-called presiding bishop” Schori.

Do you like fights?

Do you want to preserve your front teeth–if you still have them?

I am certain that you leave your unwilling listeners NO DOUBT as to your feelings, so a simple “Schori” will do.

 

[GKC]

They insist on using the 1928 BCP. They do not recognize the ordination of women, and they do recognize all 7 sacraments. The one thing that puzzles me is this. Doesn’t recognizing all 7 sacraments directly contradict the 39 Articles? Perhaps someone more learned than myself would be so kind as to enlighten me.

I’m not much of a theologian, more a clinician; I don’t remember details irrelevent to my daily work. GCK corrects me on that type of stuff.

I was taught by parish priest that the Anglican articles could be interrpetted in a catholic light. For instance, the Eucharist was not made for Eucharistic adoration (or something like that) can be interpretted as emphasis, not that Eucharistic adoration should not occur.

Of course, by catholic, the Anglo-Catholic understanding of the articles of religion is catholic in the sense of agreeable to the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Catholic in the papal sense. Would have to re-read to see what they have to say, if anything, about the pope.

The interesting thing in this is that while Common Cause, the union of Forward in Faith and the continuing Anglican churches who want to be part of the Anglican Communion new province–orthodox province in the US-- is using the 39 articles as confessional, at least one of the most important players in drafting the paperwork was the parish priest who assured me they may be understood as completely catholic.

Most of the articles can be interpreted in various ways. That was the genius of the idea, a set of beliefs that people couldn’t be sure they agreed with or not. The Elizabethan Compromise. If you want to see a noble effort to look at them in a Catholic light, find Newman’s Tract 90.

I doubt seriously that Common Cause and FiF would look at the Articles as in any sense Confessional. It is the essence of Anglo-Catholicism to do otherwise. Confessional mean what one believes. No one, outside the ordinands of the CoE, (by law) and one African jurisdiction, treat them as normative. And the CoE only requires they not be preached against (might cause an uproar).

Our parish has been in communion with FiF (UK) for years. No mention of the Articles. To be sure, FiF (US) is more on the evangelical side. But the major Continuing Churches are not.

Anglo-Catholics don’t so much contradict the Articles as ignore them. As they do the 6 Articles, the 10 Articles, the 42 Articles, the 41 Articles, and other historical documents once found in Anglicanism.

One further aside. No, recognising all 7 Sacraments doesn’t contradict the Articles. The Articles may be interpreted (remember?) so as to affirm 2 Sacraments as of the Gospel, or Dominical, instituted in their form by Our Lord, and the rest “commonly called” (which is Anglican speak for “another name for which is”; see the 1928 BCP, passim).

Or, one may ignore the articles.

GKC.

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

I don’t know anything re NT references to homosexuality.

Really? Interesting. Do you suppose there are any?

Did Jesus ever mention it? I think that if he thought it important, he would have. He talked about a lot of other things.

Sure did. Including things we don’t even know of. And then there was Paul.

I still think that it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow renegades to walk away with very valuable land and property, no matter what they think is theirs or how justified they think they are. Precedent is very important in law and I suspect that the courts will think so, too.

Maybe. Courts are iffy things, for sure. And I do seem to recall they sometimes understand the concept of “deed” and ownership". We shall see.

GKC

 

[jay29]

I don’t know anything re NT references to homosexuality.

Did Jesus ever mention it? I think that if he thought it important, he would have. He talked about a lot of other things.

If St. Paul CONDEMNS homosexuality, then Jesus does as well.

“Those who hear you, hear Me…”

Also, Jesus and the FATHER are ONE, they do not conflict with one another. Also, Jesus was the epitome of a Jew and followed all the law.

 

[GKC]

Oops.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So refer to them as “Bishop”

as in,

“Bishop” Schori, or:

“Presiding Bishop” Schori.

Do you call rabbis, “Rabbi”?

Or you could refer to Schori as “so-called presiding bishop” Schori.

Do you like fights?

Do you want to preserve your front teeth–if you still have them?

I am certain that you leave your unwilling listeners NO DOUBT as to your feelings, so a simple “Schori” will do.

I’m Anglican. I don’t refer to the gracious Katherine as a bishop. Not likely to, either.

Occasionally I refer to her as a CEO.

GKC

 

[nsper7]

Let’s cool this down a little…

 

[GKC]

Let’s cool this down a little…

Sounds good to me. All agitated folk, take note.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

With regard to the original post, the Holy Father’s claims to universal ordinary jurisdiction are my main problem. Like others here, though, I still see him as my Patriarch and am excited he’s coming to NYC next week.

I also don’t find particularly inspiring the largely legalistic approach to doctrine and morality that Rome seems to espouse. Personally, the Orthodox East’s emphasis on apophaticism and mystery are much more enticing. I would be more likely to swim the Bosphorous than the Tiber. But, for the time being, I remain an Anglo-Catholic. Though, compared with some here, perhaps an anomalous one–part of TEC/ECUSA.

Re: women’s ordination, I would be curious to read responses to the legend of St. Brigit. I once shared the opinion of a priest friend of mine that women were invalid matter for the sacrament, but the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who, it is said, received episcopal consecration at the hands of St. Mel, convinced me otherwise. Granted, it’s a legend and not official teaching, but it seems to indicate that the popular mind of the church as expressed in her legendarium understood women to be worthy of episcopal dignity, that is, the church could conceive of a woman as valid matter.

Anyway.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

With regard to the original post, the Holy Father’s claims to universal ordinary jurisdiction are my main problem. Like others here, though, I still see him as my Patriarch and am excited he’s coming to NYC next week.

I also don’t find particularly inspiring the largely legalistic approach to doctrine and morality that Rome seems to espouse. Personally, the Orthodox East’s emphasis on apophaticism and mystery are much more enticing. I would be more likely to swim the Bosphorous than the Tiber. But, for the time being, I remain an Anglo-Catholic. Though, compared with some here, perhaps an anomalous one–part of TEC/ECUSA.

Re: women’s ordination, I would be curious to read responses to the legend of St. Brigit. I once shared the opinion of a priest friend of mine that women were invalid matter for the sacrament, but the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who, it is said, received episcopal consecration at the hands of St. Mel, convinced me otherwise. Granted, it’s a legend and not official teaching, but it seems to indicate that the popular mind of the church as expressed in her legendarium understood women to be worthy of episcopal dignity, that is, the church could conceive of a woman as valid matter.

Anyway.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Or, that the elderly Mel, perhaps not at his best, for some reason, mistakenly read the wrong service at the consecration of Brigid to the veil.

It’s a feeble legend to base such a conclusion on, it seems.

GLC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[nsper7]

My major qualms with Roman Catholic theology would be the following:

1. Immaculate Conception of Mary
2. Transubstantiation (this concept seems based on a highly antiquated view of the nature of matter)
3. Papal Infallibility
4. Requirement of Confession to an Ordained Priest for normal forgiveness of sins (as an Anglican/Episcopalian I have partaken in Sacramental Confession and I do believe it can convey grace and lead to spiritual healing, but I do not believe it is a requirement for forgiveness of sins)
5. The idea of loss of Salvation everytime one commits a mortal sin until they confess it to a Priest or perform an act of perfect contrition

 

[thirdn6]

My major qualms with Roman Catholic theology would be the following:

1. Immaculate Conception of Mary
2. Transubstantiation (this concept seems based on a highly antiquated view of the nature of matter)
3. Papal Infallibility
4. Requirement of Confession to an Ordained Priest for normal forgiveness of sins (as an Anglican/Episcopalian I have partaken in Sacramental Confession and I do believe it can convey grace and lead to spiritual healing, but I do not believe it is a requirement for forgiveness of sins)
5. The idea of loss of Salvation everytime one commits a mortal sin until they confess it to a Priest or perform an act of perfect contrition

seems like you are POOR in obedience but FULL of imaginations…

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 +

 

[1234]

If St. Paul CONDEMNS homosexuality, then Jesus does as well.

“Those who hear you, hear Me…”

Also, Jesus and the FATHER are ONE, they do not conflict with one another. Also, Jesus was the epitome of a Jew and followed all the law.

No he didn’t.

Jesus deliberately broke the Sabbath, one of the most inviolate laws of Judaism. He walked through a field, harvesting grain, in a deliberate gesture. And his followers didn’t follow Judaism, they broke with it, in allowing uncircumcised Gentiles to be baptized.

as an aside, there are many apocryphal gospels–is homosexuality mentioned in any of these?–Thomas, etc. Does anybody know?

What isn’t recorded of Jesus’ sayings isn’t binding. It would be same to assume that, as a Jew, he despised homosexuality, but we don’t know that he did, and there were a lot of other things that he (apparently) despised even worse, that we do know about.

 

[thirdn6]

What isn’t recorded of Jesus’ sayings isn’t binding. It would be same to assume that, as a Jew, he despised homosexuality, but we don’t know that he did, and there were a lot of other things that he (apparently) despised even worse, that we do know about.

DRB John 21:25:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Bottomline is… Subject yourselves to church authority! The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Her teachings!

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Be not confused. God bless.

---

Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 +