Attending an Anglican bible study

[GKC]

The “Episcopal Church” satirized in such songs appears to me to be almost entirely a fantasy. I know that there are at least two parishes in the Episcopal Church where the Creed is not said, so I won’t say it’s entirely fallacious. But generally it seems to me that the folks who claim “most Episcopalians aren’t Christians but there are a minority who are” have it exactly backwards. A vocal minority is being described as the norm.

The norm in the Episcopal Church is creedal orthodoxy and social liberalism.

Edwin

I think your estimates of the ratios are likely correct. But the social liberalism, in practice, undermines the creedal orthodoxy. Or, perhaps, the scriptural one.

GKC

 

[blazerdave]

I’m only upset if you

a. Believe in the validity of Anglican orders, and
b. Believe in the ordination of women.

If those two things are true, then you are a Donatist heretic, and that upsets me.

Disbelief in the validity of Anglican orders does not upset me, though it would be odd in an Anglican.

Disbelief in women’s ordination upsets me in the sense that I find the theological reasons for it threadbare and at the same time cannot dismiss the fact that such a position has tradition on its side. But it doesn’t offend me if expressed respectfully.

But the idea that Canon Glasspool’s lesbianism makes any difference to the validity of her consecration–that’s heresy and I will denounce it as such.

Edwin

So I’m a Donatist now? Grow up.

 

[blazerdave]

I think that the issue is not her sexual orientation per se. It is her open living of it, in a manner that has historically been interpreted as counter both to scripture and traditional Church teaching and interpretation of it. It is not an incidence of Donatism, but a reaction to TEC’s acceptance of a sinful, or one might say, an inherently disordered, life style that is the issue.

I think.

GKC

Thank you.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The “Episcopal Church” satirized in such songs appears to me to be almost entirely a fantasy. I know that there are at least two parishes in the Episcopal Church where the Creed is not said, so I won’t say it’s entirely fallacious. But generally it seems to me that the folks who claim “most Episcopalians aren’t Christians but there are a minority who are” have it exactly backwards. A vocal minority is being described as the norm.

The norm in the Episcopal Church is creedal orthodoxy and social liberalism.

Edwin

It is satirized, of course, Edwin. I don’t actually believe that most Episcopalians are like that. It’s more a lampoon of the current hierarchy and their heterodox practices.

 

[anode]

I think that the issue is not her sexual orientation per se. It is her open living of it, in a manner that has historically been interpreted as counter both to scripture and traditional Church teaching and interpretation of it. It is not an incidence of Donatism, but a reaction to TEC’s acceptance of a sinful, or one might say, an inherently disordered, life style that is the issue.

I think.

GKC

“Inherently disordered:…”.

That’s how the Roman Catholic church describes homosexuality.

Not all agree.

 

[blazerdave]

The thing that speaks volumes, however, is this: If I think that a lesbian can be a bishop, I am apparently orthodox - at least to Edwin and to KJS. If I think that lesbian bishops are contrary to Scripture and Tradition, I am a heretic and must be strongly opposed and denounced.

That says all we need to know about Episcopal hierarchy and about Edwin who has chosen to label me a heretic despite lacking any knowledge of my theological positions.

 

[catharina]

The Anglicans best-known to me, relatives by marriage,
converted en masse to Catholicism with their priest in the 1980s in South Carolina.
Guess they were among the "early risers’ in view of foreseeing the Anglican “changes.”

 

[eucharisteo]

I have been to a few churches of this ilk, and they do like to put their “distinctives” front and center. As a bonus point, if the word “fire” appears somewhere in the name, you can usually be assured of some good music (assuming lively music with Hammond B-3 accompaniment fits within your concept of good)

As long as there is no instruments or choirs I’m okay with it.

 

[Contarini]

I think that the issue is not her sexual orientation per se.

Well of course. *That *isn’t even a sin.

It is her open living of it, in a manner that has historically been interpreted as counter both to scripture and traditional Church teaching and interpretation of it. It is not an incidence of Donatism, but a reaction to TEC’s acceptance of a sinful, or one might say, an inherently disordered, life style that is the issue.

I think.

I know that’s the issue, and I agree that her election was wrong.

But if you say that someone’s sins, open or hidden, impede the validity of a sacrament, then yes, you have fallen into Donatism.

Edwin

 

[Non_Serviam]

As long as there is no instruments or choirs I’m okay with it.

As you wish.

 

[Contarini]

The thing that speaks volumes, however, is this: If I think that a lesbian can be a bishop, I am apparently orthodox - at least to Edwin and to KJS.

A lesbian can be a bishop. Someone known to be living in a sexual relationship other than marriage (and marriage is by definition heterosexual)* ought not to be* consecrated bishop. But if they are, then the consecration is still valid.

If I think that lesbian bishops are contrary to Scripture and Tradition, I am a heretic and must be strongly opposed and denounced.

Nothing of the sort. I’m opposing you not for thinking that practicing lesbians shouldn’t be bishops, but for saying that a person living in open sin cannot be validly consecrated bishop. That is in fact Donatism. Your admonition to “grow up” is itself an immature response. How about dealing with the theological issue?

Since the early fifth century, the Church has condemned as heresy the view that a person’s sins, no matter how grave (we may well differ on the gravity of homosexual behavior, but that’s not the point), affect sacramental validity.

That says all we need to know about Episcopal hierarchy and about Edwin who has chosen to label me a heretic despite lacking any knowledge of my theological positions.

I said that *if *you believe the ordination of women is valid, and *if *you believe that Anglican orders are valid, and *if *you believe that the ordination of Canon Glasspool is invalid, then you are a Donatist, because you are saying that her sins prevent her from being validly ordained.

I took great pains to assume nothing. I didn’t even assume that you believe in the validity of Anglican orders, which might seem a legitimate assumption.

I am simply pointing out the implications of your use of italics.

People’s sexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their ordination, but it has a lot to do with whether they should be ordained.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Inherently disordered:…”.

That’s how the Roman Catholic church describes homosexuality.

Not all agree.

Yes, but I do. That’s not the point. Questioning the validity of her consecration on the grounds of her disordered sexuality is still Donatism.

Edwin

 

[blazerdave]

Well of course. *That *isn’t even a sin.

I know that’s the issue, and I agree that her election was wrong.

But if you say that someone’s sins, open or hidden, impede the validity of a sacrament, then yes, you have fallen into Donatism.

Edwin

Nobody said anything about validity except you, dude.

If you want to support this “bishop,” be my guest. It seems that if Canterbury and the overwhelming majority of the AC think that it’s a sinful, heretical, stupid idea, we should listen to them. But instead we choose to thumb our collective nose at them, insult them, and mock Episcopalians who want to obey the Moratorium that we briefly agreed to follow. Since my holding the majority Anglican position has led to name-calling and accusations of heresy, I’m done arguing with you and I’m done with this thread.

Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[eucharisteo]

We’re consecrating a lesbian “bishop.” And if any Episcopalians who read this are upset with my use of quotes, I honestly couldn’t care less.

In our conversion experience this was the main reason we chose not to even consider it even though I was looking for something other than Catholic so the family wouldn’t throw up once we told them we converted. I forgot about all the issues the TEC was experiencing. I wanted to find a church that would actually dunk my kids entirely to rid myself of the anxiety I felt about the pouring part even though I realized it is evident early Christians accepted it - Didache. I wanted our families to accept their baptisms, unlike now.

Eventually the more I read the more I realized there is a serious problem and I visit a former “Anglican” parish in communion with Rome about once per month. I even donate to support the pastor, married with grandchildren. No matter how you look at it, “church authority” rules, no matter how you feel about it. But there are some things that are outright heretical and require everyone’s resistence. I believe this is one of the main reason so many Anglicans are coming into communion with the first of many bishops. The Bishop of Rome.

 

[GKC]

“Inherently disordered:…”.

That’s how the Roman Catholic church describes homosexuality.

Not all agree.

No kidding. One may say the same of other things the RCC says, as well.

But still, one might say “inherently disordered”. I just did.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

The thing that speaks volumes, however, is this: If I think that a lesbian can be a bishop, I am apparently orthodox - at least to Edwin and to KJS. If I think that lesbian bishops are contrary to Scripture and Tradition, I am a heretic and must be strongly opposed and denounced.

That says all we need to know about Episcopal hierarchy and about Edwin who has chosen to label me a heretic despite lacking any knowledge of my theological positions.

For my part, I would say that the operative connection is “lesbian/bishop”. If one said “homosexual/bishop”, one would need to know more before making a judgment on the validity of the orders.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The Anglicans best-known to me, relatives by marriage,
converted en masse to Catholicism with their priest in the 1980s in South Carolina.
Guess they were among the "early risers’ in view of foreseeing the Anglican “changes.”

Were they Anglican Use? And were they the parish of the Good Shepherd?

GKC

 

[catharina]

Were they Anglican Use? And were they the parish of the Good Shepherd?

GKC

Yes and No.

If you prefer, for clarity:

Yes.
No.

 

[GKC]

Yes, but I do. That’s not the point. Questioning the validity of her consecration on the grounds of her disordered sexuality is still Donatism.

Edwin

I agree, with the caveats you will anticipate. Questioning the validity of her ordination, otherwise valid, due to her moral state, is Donatism.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nobody said anything about validity except you, dude.

If you want to support this “bishop,” be my guest. It seems that if Canterbury and the overwhelming majority of the AC think that it’s a sinful, heretical, stupid idea, we should listen to them. But instead we choose to thumb our collective nose at them, insult them, and mock Episcopalians who want to obey the Moratorium that we briefly agreed to follow. Since my holding the majority Anglican position has led to name-calling and accusations of heresy, I’m done arguing with you and I’m done with this thread.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Actually, I think I said validity, somewhere in there, too. The fact that she is, as the Church has always held, invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, takes priority of any secondary consideration of her sinful nature.

Ignoring Contarini because he disagrees with you is your loss. I’ve been disagreeing with him for around 10 years. He was the 2nd person who responded to the first post I ever made on the net, anywhere, and he disagreed with me then. He has improved marginally over the years, but he still disagrees with me. And I still disagree with him. And learn from him, too.

GKC