BREAKING: Episcopal Church suspended from Anglican Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopyBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
Slavery, like homosexual activity, or abortion, was wrong long before the Church existed; not wrong because the Church says so, but wrong because it goes against an absolute standard.
Click to expand...
If slavery has always been wrong, then why does it say in Leviticus 25:44:
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property
Click to expand...
Isn’t Leviticus considered to be inspired by God and if so, why would He condone something that is wrong?

This does go to the authority of Scripture, since I’m less inclined to find all of Scripture equally authoritative and am inclined to believe that much of it is not inspired by God.
 
Picky_Picky said:
And the Leviticus problem?
Click to expand...
Do you mean the severity, or lack thereof, for various transgressions? I think these two passages give us a general idea:

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
  • from John 8
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
  • from Matthew 19
Although those two passages are, in some ways, very different from each other, they both indicate that we cannot necessarily go by the severity, or lack thereof, for various transgressions as given in the law.
 
Peter_J said:
Do you mean the severity, or lack thereof, for various transgressions? I think these two passages give us a general idea:

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
  • from John 8
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
  • from Matthew 19
Although those two passages are, in some ways, very different from each other, they both indicate that we cannot necessarily go by the severity, or lack thereof, for various transgressions as given in the law.
Click to expand...
No, sorry, I was contrasting the instructions for slavery with commenter’s notion that slavery was always wrong by some absolute standard. And wondering when the Church had issued the authoritative statement that Leviticus was, in this matter, promoting an absolute evil.
 
pnewton said:
No, my comparison was not arbitrary. It was Catholic. Anglicans, Episcopalian, Lutherans, etc. do not get that sticking with authoritative, apostolic, divine guidance is not arbitrary, but quite the opposite. Both in American and across the internet, this Protestant idea that one opinion, interpretation, understanding is as good as another is incompatible here. I do not judge those tempted by this sin, but I darn sure will say it is a sin and giving into any sin, then institutionalizing this sin as normal, is less civilized.
Click to expand...
I will just say the above still takes having faith. Some Christians do have a Catholic faith. Other Christians however have Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc. The way I see it, if it weren’t for different faiths or beliefs or views, there wouldn’t be a non Catholic subforum. 👍
 
Picky_Picky said:
No, sorry, I was contrasting the instructions for slavery with commenter’s notion that slavery was always wrong by some absolute standard. And wondering when the Church had issued the authoritative statement that Leviticus was, in this matter, promoting an absolute evil.
Click to expand...
If slavery has always been wrong, then why does it say in Leviticus 25:44:
Click to expand...
Quote:
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property
Click to expand...
I believe that what I quoted, specifically Matthew 19:8 when the Lord told them “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you …” indicates that not every statute that Moses set up was divinely ordained.
 
I think the Thread is referring to the relationship between the AC and TEC, current developments, and what may happen later. I am sure there are people better informed about Anglicanism than I am, I would like to hear more from them, rather than my generic rants.
 
peter26 said:
Heresy is not sin. :rolleyes: That just shows how far the Episcopalians have fallen from Biblical truth.
Click to expand...
Honestly I never understand such posts. I don’t see the point. Are you using the Catholic Church’s definition of heresy? Do Episcopalians see themselves as heretics? I’d have a hard time believing that Episcopalians believe they are heretics. But maybe they do and an Episcopalian can set me straight.
 
Padres1969 said:
As do I. I’m sure she will address it since the African provinces aren’t just against SSM but also are against women’s ordination as well. Both issues impact my church’s congregation greatly.

As you say, day to day the SSM issue has no impact on anyone in the congregation not in a SSM. But overall a sizeable portion of our congregation (approximately 40% give or take) are former Catholics, many of whom left in part due to the RCC’s stance on certain social or theological issues, among them women’s ordination and sexual issues. And with half our parish priests being women, including the dean, and a significant portion of the congregation being homosexual it will have to be addressed. I’d be shocked if the Dean’s sermon Sunday doesn’t address it in detail.
Click to expand...
Padres, did the dean of your congregation address it on Sunday? If so, it might be helpful if you could share just a bit on what was said.

Also any others who attend Episcopal churches, I’d be curious if anything was said by your priests.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Honestly I never understand such posts. I don’t see the point. Are you using the Catholic Church’s definition of heresy? Do Episcopalians see themselves as heretics? I’d have a hard time believing that Episcopalians believe they are heretics. But maybe they do and an Episcopalian can set me straight.
Click to expand...
No Episcopalians don’t see themselves as heretics. I’d have thought that was obvious. :confused:
 
Sy_Noe said:
Padres, did the dean of your congregation address it on Sunday? If so, it might be helpful if you could share just a bit on what was said.

Also any others who attend Episcopal churches, I’d be curious if anything was said by your priests.
Click to expand...
No, we actually had a previously scheduled guest sermon so the Dean did not give her sermon this Sunday. The guest speaker focused on the plight of immigrants and the immigrant experience rather than anything related to church politics. It was actually kind of refreshing to see Christs core work continuing despite the goings on in Canterbury.
 
Padres1969 said:
No, we actually had a previously scheduled guest sermon so the Dean did not give her sermon this Sunday. The guest speaker focused on the plight of immigrants and the immigrant experience rather than anything related to church politics. It was actually kind of refreshing to see Christs core work continuing despite the goings on in Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Well the president of TEC’s House of Deputies did say Episcopalians would continue working despite the goings on.
 
Padres1969 said:
No Episcopalians don’t see themselves as heretics. I’d have thought that was obvious. :confused:
Click to expand...
Sy_Noe said:
It is. I forgot the sarcastic smiley.
Click to expand...
You’ve been spending too much time around me … well except that I would have been more dramatic, e.g. “So Mr. Padres, you expect us to believe that you don’t consider your beliefs to be vile falsehoods?” (cue minor-key music)
 
commenter said:
I think the Thread is referring to the relationship between the AC and TEC, current developments, and what may happen later. I am sure there are people better informed about Anglicanism than I am, I would like to hear more from them, rather than my generic rants.
Click to expand...
And I should certainly shut up. But if I can be forgiven for one last word on slavery, may I commend to our common memory those very admirable Christians, of several denominations, whose tireless campaigning led to the end of the Trade and then to the end of slavery itself in North America. Wilberforce is a hero of mine, and if there are any here who haven’t met him, let me introduce you.
 
Picky_Picky said:
And I should certainly shut up. But if I can be forgiven for one last word on slavery…
Click to expand...
I am surprise this red herring is still going on. It has nothing to do with the topic and was only a poor attempt at analogy, comparing homosexual behavior with owning slaves, as if the two had significant points in common. Again, not the topic. Red herring.
 
pnewton said:
I am surprise this red herring is still going on. It has nothing to do with the topic and was only a poor attempt at analogy, comparing homosexual behavior with owning slaves, as if the two had significant points in common. Again, not the topic. Red herring.
Click to expand...
The issue of slavery was not brought up to compare it to homosexual behavior. It was brought up to raise a very important question. If early Christianity and the Church was so mistaken for so long on one important moral issue (is it morally acceptable to own slaves), why should anyone assume that it is right on another moral issue (is homosexual conduct morally acceptable)? What credibility does the Church have when it basically condoned slavery for so long?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top