Can the Episcopal Church be saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusExMachina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Little_Sheep said:
Good questions. I love TEC - the very same Church that excommunicated my grandmother when she divorced her first husband! :eek: I do not perceive TEC or Anglicanism in political terms. I do not perceive TEC as “liberal” or “conservative.” I see us as a Church intent on seeking God’s direction and carrying out Christ’s commandments. Like other churches, we have our struggles.

As I have said before, I know many many Catholics who hold the same views about certain social issues as many Episcopalians do. We’re all just human beings doing the best we can down here. The main difference between Episcopalians and Catholics is that y’all have a Pope. Good on you for that. I have great respect for Catholicism. After all, Catholicism is a meaningful part of TEC’s past and present. I see no problem with people of good faith hanging out on different beams of the rainbow. God bless!
Click to expand...
I’m not even Episcopalian but I love TEC and others as well. I think it was ComplineSanFran whom I saw on another CAF thread speak of many neighborhoods in the same city. You speak of different beams of the rainbow. Both fine analogies. But then I’ve read 3 pgs of this thread and I still don’t know what it is TEC needs saved from. Like you said here, we’re all just human beings doing the best we can within our limitations. God bless all who walk in faith.
 
Sy_Noe said:
But then I’ve read 3 pgs of this thread and I still don’t know what it is TEC needs saved from.
Click to expand...
Doctrinal chaos and a virtually non-existent membership come to mind rather quickly.
 
thecolorsblend said:
Doctrinal chaos and a virtually non-existent membership come to mind rather quickly.
Click to expand...
Doctrinal chaos? How so? I see a prayerful leadership in the National Church and although General Convention can be a bit chaotic at times, the decisions made are of the Spirit. I appreciate our ability to speak to each other in love and charity, even in the hard places.

Non-existent membership? Not in my diocese and not in places I visit. People of faith gather together with incredible joy. This is Christ’s Body on earth. We are Church.
 
Little_Sheep said:
Did I say I was a proud Protestant? I said that there is no shame in being a Protestant. In general, my Christianity is not something I am “proud” of, but it is something that has nourished me forever. And, of course, my particular tradition is part of that nourishment.

I love ALL versions of our Prayer Book and, of course, we teach proper Christian morals.

I can’t begin to understand why someone might put “Christ-centered” in quotes. Very strange to me…
Click to expand...
I don’t think that proper Christian morals includes SSM. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that two people of the same sex can get ‘married.’
 
Only if those who hold to Christianity remain, maybe. They would have to become the dominant voices within ECUSA, but that would be decades away.

I would rather the Angliacan Christians who are faithful become Orthodox in all honestly.
 
Padres1969 said:
To answer your second part first, no, communion with Canterbury is not required to be considered Anglican. Many groups that are considered Anglican today are not in communion with Canterbury.

Now is it possible for some Anglican Churches to start to consider some of their fellow Anglican churches as not being Anglican anymore? I suppose it’s possible and wouldn’t be any different than Roman Catholics not considering other Catholic Churches like the Polish National Catholics or Old Catholics as truly being Catholic anymore even though they still are considered Catholic by the outside world and themselves.
Click to expand...
In union with the current pope = Catholic. Not in union with the current pope = not Catholic.
 
commenter said:
In union with the current pope = Catholic. Not in union with the current pope = not Catholic.
Click to expand...
I thought this has been discussed ad infinitum on these forums. Your statement is not accurate.
 
commenter said:
In union with the current pope = Catholic. Not in union with the current pope = not Catholic.
Click to expand...
And yet your statement is not fact. There are several Catholic churches that are not in union with Rome any longer.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Doctrinal chaos? How so? I see a prayerful leadership in the National Church and although General Convention can be a bit chaotic at times, the decisions made are of the Spirit. I appreciate our ability to speak to each other in love and charity, even in the hard places.
**
Non-existent membership? Not in my diocese and not in places I visit. **People of faith gather together with incredible joy. This is Christ’s Body on earth. We are Church.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Has the ECUSA lost members, absolutely. As have pretty much all churches in the west. But to say we have “non-existent membership” is pure hyperbole. That or there’s a bunch of people attending the Episcopal Churches that I visit that are holograms or something. Which in this day and age I supposed is possible. Or robots! They could be robots!
 
Little_Sheep said:
Did I say I was a proud Protestant? I said that there is no shame in being a Protestant. In general, my Christianity is not something I am “proud” of, but it is something that has nourished me forever. And, of course, my particular tradition is part of that nourishment.

I love ALL versions of our Prayer Book and, of course, we teach proper Christian morals.

I can’t begin to understand why someone might put “Christ-centered” in quotes. Very strange to me…
Click to expand...
Its just the fact you said being protestant is nothing to be ashamed of… that and the christ-centered remark about the preschool IMO paint a fairly protestant picture when put together.🤷
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Only if those who hold to Christianity remain, maybe. They would have to become the dominant voices within ECUSA, but that would be decades away.

I would rather the Angliacan Christians who are faithful become Orthodox in all honestly.
Click to expand...
A fair chunk of the " faithful anglicans" who remain in TEC are too low church to even consider becoming orthodox.
 
Little_Sheep said:
As I have said before, I know many many Catholics who hold the same views about certain social issues as many Episcopalians do. We’re all just human beings doing the best we can down here. The main difference between Episcopalians and Catholics is that y’all have a Pope. Good on you for that. I have great respect for Catholicism. After all, Catholicism is a meaningful part of TEC’s past and present. I see no problem with people of good faith hanging out on different beams of the rainbow. God bless!
Click to expand...
No! The main difference is not that Roman Catholics have a Pope. There are many differences. First, contraception is not allowed in the RCC (unless for medical reasons). Same sex “marrriage” is not allowed in the RCC, either. No holy orders in TEC, but the RCC has them. If it wasn’t for Catholicism, there wouldn’t be TEC. I could go on and on.

As for the TEC being liberal, I believe they most certainly are. When a church condones abortion, same sex “marriage,” etc. not only is it liberal but also immoral.
 
Graceful_Lamb said:
No! The main difference is not that Roman Catholics have a Pope. There are many differences. First, contraception is not allowed in the RCC (unless for medical reasons). Same sex “marrriage” is not allowed in the RCC, either. No holy orders in TEC, but the RCC has them.

As for the TEC being liberal, I believe they most certainly are. When a church condones abortion, same sex “marriage,” etc. not only is it liberal but also immoral.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are confusing social issues (in part) with the larger picture. To say that the RCC doesn’t allow contraception and TEC does, has very little to do with the essential similarities between these two branches of the Christian Church.

Both have Bishops, Priests, and Deacons
Both are liturgical churches that center around the Eucharist
Both are sacramental
Both are theologically rooted in the same early history
etc, etc

To focus on the social concerns seems to me to be peripheral. Birth control and abortion, and perhaps to a lesser extent same sex marriage (just because it is so newly defined), are issues for the RCC and not so much for others. I am not saying they shouldn’t be important to you, not at all. I’m just trying to put them into a context of the greater Church and how it worships and carries out the Gospel of Christ.
 
Graceful_Lamb said:
No! The main difference is not that Roman Catholics have a Pope. There are many differences. First, contraception is not allowed in the RCC (unless for medical reasons). Same sex “marrriage” is not allowed in the RCC, either. No holy orders in TEC, but the RCC has them. If it wasn’t for Catholicism, there wouldn’t be TEC. I could go on and on.

As for the TEC being liberal, I believe they most certainly are. When a church condones abortion, same sex “marriage,” etc. not only is it liberal but also immoral.
Click to expand...
Um, we have Holy Orders… 😉

Also the ECUSA does not “condone” abortion. In fact the church’s official position is that it is only to be used in extreme circumstances.
 
Padres1969 said:
Um, we have Holy Orders… 😉

Also the ECUSA does not “condone” abortion. In fact the church’s official position is that it is only to be used in extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...
And the problem with that, is that the inanity of the moral position on abortion is enough to disqualify it from being a Christian institution. If an evangelical church came along and said “we do not condone rape unless it is to be used under extreme circumstances,” they would not be taken seriously as representing the gospel. The same is true of abortion.
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
And the problem with that, is that the inanity of the moral position on abortion is enough to disqualify it from being a Christian institution. If an evangelical church came along and said “we do not condone rape unless it is to be used under extreme circumstances,” they would not be taken seriously as representing the gospel. The same is true of abortion.
Click to expand...
We’ll just have to disagree there. Having a reasonable accommodation view of abortion for extreme circumstances (things like rape, incest, mother’s life in danger) does not disqualify an institution from being Christian. In fact last I checked abortion isn’t specifically listed in the bible, rather all our churches views on it are simply men interpreting what is in the bible and doing our best to apply it to the issue.

The notion that a church that does express reasonable accommodation in extreme circumstances isn’t Christian is not one I’ve ever heard before your statement so you don’t have a very common position either I’d point out. 🤷 And your rape analogy is a straw man at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top