Any Episcopalians here?

[Contarini]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if there are any Episcopalians on this board? Being a Christian Humanist, I think that the Episcopal Church would be a good fit for me. I am seriously considering visiting one tomorrow. If there are any Episcopalians on here, please send me a PM or post a message on my wall. I don’t accept e-mails through this site so you wouldn’t be able to e-mail me unless I give you my e-mail address. But anyway, if you are Episcopalian, what is your experience with this church? Former Episcopalians feel free to comment as well. I honestly don’t think that the Catholic Church would be a good fit for me as I am a rather progressive individual but if you wish to try and convince me that the Catholic Church is better, then go ahead. That’s not an invitation but a welcome. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the fact that I am interested in the Catholic Church to a certain extent.

Sunlight,

I’m an Episcopalian. I was confirmed in 1998 after several years of investigating Catholicism (and to some extent also Orthodoxy, though at the time I didn’t take Orthodoxy as seriously as I should have done). I struggled with this decision a great deal both at the time and in the twelve years since. I don’t think I would become Episcopalian now if I had it to do over again. I would describe my reasons for becoming Episcopalian as the following (keeping in mind that anyone’s reasons for doing anything like this are always more than can be listed):

1. I knew that on the points where Anglicans were more Catholic than other Protestants, I agreed with Anglicans. In other words, I knew that whatever church I belonged to, I would believe in the Real Presence, apostolic succession at least as a matter of discipline and authority, the importance of liturgy, etc.
2. I was unsure of whether I could ever come to accept the points where Catholics differed from Anglicans (as I said, I wish I had taken Orthodoxy more seriously at the time, but I was very Augustinian and had spent a lot of time in Romania, and both of these factors caused me to think that Orthodoxy was no better a choice than Catholicism).
3. To put the above historically–I came from a Holiness background, which in my case meant that my family had left the Methodist Church around the beginning of the 20th century. Methodism of course comes from Anglicanism. From my perspective, I could say with certainty that my family had been wrong to leave Methodism, and that Methodism had no doctrinal grounds for separation from Anglicanism; I didn’t think I could be so sure either of the issues separating Anglicanism from Catholicism or Catholicism from Orthodoxy. Around the time I was making the decision, I was reading Jedin’s History of the Council of Trent, and it seemed to me that some of the minority voices at the Council of Trent ought to have prevailed. I knew that this was a fallible opinion, but Anglicanism offered me a community of people within which this was an acceptible view, and within which I could hold such views while still practicing something very like medieval Catholicism. In other words, it gave me a way to be a pre-Tridentine Catholic of sorts. (That’s what I said to myself at the time.)
4. To put the historical case more simply: John Wesley died Anglican. I could thus claim that in becoming Anglican I was becoming an “eighteenth-century Methodist.”
5. And finally, I knew that I needed to belong to a church. I couldn’t just keep dithering.

I’m interested to know what you mean by a “Christian humanist.” That can mean a lot of things. As I understand it, it is quite compatible with both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But you may mean something different by it.

You may be a “progressive individual,” but the question is: do you consider these “progressive” beliefs to be the core of who you are, or do you recognize that ancient traditions may have something valid to say that challenges your 21st-century assumptions?

Edwin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

From my perspective, I could say with certainty that my family had been wrong to leave Methodism, and that Methodism had no doctrinal grounds for separation from Anglicanism

Good post Contarini. You believe that Methodism had no grounds to separate from Anglicanism. Do you believe that Methodism today has doctrinal grounds to stay separate?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

Thanks! I honestly found that to be rather surprising that some tried to get you to be more hardcore and conservative.

Why wouldn’t they? What these folks would say in their terms is that they were trying to get him to be more orthodox and faithful.

That said, I have done some research about the Episcopal Church in the past and I did know about their open Communion practice. I personally agree with this. I do not believe that Jesus would exclude anyone from receiving His most sacred body and blood that are baptized.

A couple of issues here. Presumably your opinion rests on what some would call “baptismal ecclesiology”–that is, the view that the Catholic Church is made up of all the baptized. It’s important to distinguish this from a general desire to be “inclusive,” which leads the more liberal Episcopalians to offer communion to everyone, baptized or not. In other words, we need to be clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of those who belong to the Catholic Church. The question between us and the more exclusive churches is thus how we define the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic Church is made up of all those who are baptized, the next question is: is there any place for excommunication? This is a nasty word, but if there is no possibility of any such thing, then you could for instance have a Nazi bishop teaching that non-white people were subhuman and should be slaughtered, and yet it would be our responsibility to accept such a bishop as truly part of the Church. But once you grant that individuals or groups can separate themselves from the Church, baptismal ecclesiology starts to break down, doesn’t it?

I struggle with this. I have a strong leaning toward baptismal ecclesiology–this is one of the reasons I’m still Anglican. But I’m not sure I could really practice it–if I lived in a town where the only church was a fundamentalist Baptist one, I’m not sure I’d go to it. And yet baptismal ecclesiology would surely require me to do so.

The only part that I have trouble with is its reference to the Church as Catholic. I am not sure if that is just the modern translation of it or if the Church Fathers who formulated literally used the word Catholic. That said, I suppose it could also be possible that the term “Catholic” back then meant the “Universal Church”. I personally choose to believe the latter more than the other theories.

No offense, but why not inform yourself instead of making an arbitrary “personal choice”?

The word “Catholic” has always set some people claiming to be Christians off from others. Saying that it means “the Universal Church” is obvious and doesn’t get us anywhere, because it brings us back to the question: what is the Church?

Ah okay. That is pretty cool. I did not know that the United Methodists, Presbyterians, Moravians, United Church of Christ, and Reformed Church in America were in full communion with the Episcopal Church. That makes me feel quite a bit better about the possibility of joining the Episcopal Church in the future.

Actually this is note the situation. The ELCA, to which Lutheranteach presumably belongs, is in full communion with us and also with those other denominations. However, we have no direct agreement with them. You would think that logically if we’re in communion with the ELCA and they are in communion with those others then we’re all in communion, but that’s not how it works. And that makes me feel much worse about being Episcopalian. Mainline ecumenism sounds nice, but it gets along largely by avoiding many of the tough ecclesiological questions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Good post Contarini. You believe that Methodism had no grounds to separate from Anglicanism. Do you believe that Methodism today has doctrinal grounds to stay separate?

God bless

Certainly not. But whether Methodists actually “separated” from Anglicanism is a complicated question. In America, Methodism didn’t really come out of Anglicanism, but was organized by Wesley because there were a lot of converts with no ties to any church whatsoever. At the time when the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, Anglicans in the new United States had yet to organize themselves into a formal denomination–they were still in disarray after the Revolution.

In other words, while I don’t think there are good reasons for the UMC and the Episcopal Church to be separate, I don’t think the onus necessarily rests only on the Methodists.

Edwin

 

[CARV]

So now I will answer your question: I understand it in light of the Church which provided you with these verses. They were disciplinary teachings of St. Paul. Nothing more and nothing less.

Incidentally, the CC does not “simply disregard them”. If they had, they simply would have removed them from the canon, right? After all, it was the CC which had the power to determine what actually went into the Bible.

So, in the same way I am not “simply disregarding” scripture either. I understand that times have changed and some of Paul’s views weren’t meant to be definitively held by the church forever.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Certainly not. But whether Methodists actually “separated” from Anglicanism is a complicated question. In America, Methodism didn’t really come out of Anglicanism, but was organized by Wesley because there were a lot of converts with no ties to any church whatsoever. At the time when the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, Anglicans in the new United States had yet to organize themselves into a formal denomination–they were still in disarray after the Revolution.

In other words, while I don’t think there are good reasons for the UMC and the Episcopal Church to be separate, I don’t think the onus necessarily rests only on the Methodists.

Edwin

Interesting Contarini. Thanks.

God bless

 

[CMatt25]

So, in the same way I am not “simply disregarding” scripture either. I understand that times have changed and some of Paul’s views weren’t meant to be definitively held by the church forever.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I still say you’re in the wrong church—you’re a closet Episcopalian, Matt, time to convert

Anyone who finds Bishop Robinson inspiring or even sane definitely is an Episcopalian at heart, no doubt whatsoever.

gurneyhalleck1,

You’re back in action! It’s so great to see you posting again.

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

So, in the same way I am not “simply disregarding” scripture either. I understand that times have changed and some of Paul’s views weren’t meant to be definitively held by the church forever.

Exactly! :extrahappy:

So it seems peculiar that you would choose to cite that verse in the context of our discussion regarding women and the priesthood. Given that you agree with the CC on this verse, it seems that perhaps it was an attempt to be inflammatory?

 

[Gumbercules]

I selected “I used to be Episcopalian”.

I wasnt raised in any religious tradition, I became evangelical protestant Christian after attended a friends church at the tender age of 14.

I first became interested in the Episcopal Church while in college. I had been dating my girlfriend (now wife) for a few months and she was interested in returning to Christianity. But she wanted to return to the more sane Episcopal Church rather then the Evangelical denomination where she had suffered severe emotional abuse. So since I was a history student and I was interested in a more historically competent branch of Christianity, I started attending the Episcopal Church with her, and fell in love with liturgical worship. I ate up Anglican theology and got baptized in the Episcopal Church, and eventually got married in a very high church conservative Episcopal parish. I knew I could not stay in communion with the mainstream Episcopal Church however since this was the during the ordination of the homosexual priests and bishops controversy that was splitting the church. I couldnt stay in the church because of its slide into liberal theology. The conservative Episcopal priest that performed our marriage was deposed by the bishop for refusing the Eucharist to a parishioner he knew was living in unrepentant sin. That was sort of the last straw for me.

I started to question a professor I had for medieval history about his Catholicism and the Catholic Church, and ended up being received into full communion with the Catholic Church about 2 years later.

I still have lots of respect for the more conservative Anglican bodies, such as the continuing Anglican movement etc. They have stayed true to the faith, and should be commended. I pray that the conservative Anglicans take the Pope up on his offer to welcome them into the Catholic Church.

Yours

Gumb

 

[CARV]

Exactly! :extrahappy:

So it seems peculiar that you would choose to cite that verse in the context of our discussion regarding women and the priesthood. Given that you agree with the CC on this verse, it seems that perhaps it was an attempt to be inflammatory?

It was not an attempt to be inflammatory. I was equating the two positions of Paul. Someone quoted Paul’s position that women should be silent in church as a reason to bar women’s ordination. I pointed out that Paul took other postions that many, even the CC, regard as outdated. That’s all.

 

[CMatt25]

I mean, if you really want to have a first grader’s understanding of Theology you could dismiss the dogmas, doctrines, catechisms and disciplines.

Ouch sticks and stones

Matt 18:3 Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Christ did make it simple. Convert to love, believe, compassion for the poor, the sick. The Golden Rule. Peace.

 

[CARV]

Only in the same way that Science has developed an elaborate system of determining the human genome…

Or Philosophy has developed an elaborate system of determining the issues of utilitarian “agency and intention”…

Or Calculus has developed an elaborate system of determining a curve’s derivative.

I mean, if you really want to have a first grader’s understanding of Theology you could dismiss the dogmas, doctrines, catechisms and disciplines.

OR!! You could try to advance your understanding with knowledge that’s been given to you by the Church!

Sheesh. Talk about inflammatory. As if all Christians who don’t accept Roman views are childish.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks largely to prayers by kind-hearted folks like you, Anna! Thanks so much for your constant kind words and warm thoughts. Those prayers meant A LOT to me. That typhoid was a “unique” experience, let’s just say that! LOL

gurneyhalleck1,

You’re back in action! It’s so great to see you posting again.

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

Sheesh. Talk about inflammatory. As if all Christians who don’t accept Roman views are childish.

You are right. It was inflammatory and I apologize to Matt. :flowers:

 

[PRmerger]

Christ did make it simple. Convert to love, believe, compassion for the poor, the sick. The Golden Rule. Peace.

Are those not dogmas or doctrines?

I take it you are not opposed to dogmas–just that there’s too many of them?

 

[PRmerger]

Someone quoted Paul’s position that women should be silent in church as a reason to bar women’s ordination.

Who was that who quoted Paul’s position as a reason to bar women’s ordination? Could you cite the post?

(I hope you’re not referring to CMatt 'cause clearly he’s on your side of this issue and NO CATHOLIC who’s knowledgeable about his faith would ever use that verse as a reason to object to priestesses.)

 

[CMatt25]

Sheesh. Talk about inflammatory. As if all Christians who don’t accept Roman views are childish.

That was exactly what I meant by my response. You just had a better manner in which to say it. :tiphat:

 

[CMatt25]

You are right. It was inflammatory and I apologize to Matt. :flowers:

I just saw this. Apology accepted PR and I apologize to anyone I have ever offended as well. Sometimes stuff happens and occasionally we may fail no matter how much we strive to do otherwise. Everyone walkin the earth today is human afterall. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Are those not dogmas or doctrines?

I take it you are not opposed to dogmas–just that there’s too many of them?

PR, I’m mainly interested in discerning and pursuing the few dogmas or doctrines I know Christ actually spelled out plainly for us. Peace.