Catholic vs Episcoplan?

[Mystophilus]

Almost exactly the same arguments used to rationalize gay sex can be used to lower the age of consent to 12 or so.

Not so much. The argument for allowing gay couples to have the same sorts of relationships as straight couples is based in equal rights for consenting adults. The argument against paedophilia is based in a concept of consciousness itself, children being deemed incapable of sufficient understanding as to be able to form true consent. This latter understanding is what makes egalitarianism, which argues for gay rights, argue against paedophilia, since that involves extremely-unequal relationships. At most, equal rights could reasonably be used to argue for sexual relationships between children, but not between children and adults; children are unlikely to make such an argument, and no one else has good cause to make it for them. Equal rights is an idea which will be very hard to erase.

Objectively speaking, humanity has a MUCH broader history of culturally tolerating and endorsing child brides than it does gay relationships. It’s an extremely recent cultural phenonmenon to consider a 14 year old girl far too young for marriage.

The idea of an age of consent is not new; the number has just varied, and it has particularly varied between social classes. The ancient Greeks, who were, in general, hugely permissive about sex, were very firm about not having sex with children; paederasty was with youths (as they defined them), not little boys. The great majority of child bride examples have been in the upper class, a tiny proportion of any given society. It should also be pointed out that the idea itself depends upon a dominating authority structure within the family, whereby the head of the family (almost always the father) can dispose of his daughters like any of his other property. It is, once more, a contravention of equal rights.

For the lower class, who have always formed the great majority of society, marriage has much more commonly been between adults because it has been financially necessary for both partners to work. The middle class had the wealth to become part of the upper class marriage-market game, and the leisure not to work, but their pretensions of ‘refinement’ made it impracticable to marry off children who had not yet learnt enough. We see examples of the need for a bride of practical age in texts like the Bible (Pr 31:10ff), and in Hesiod’s Works and Days 694ff, where he says that a woman should not be less than four years past puberty. Child brides were the exception, not the rule.

Gay relationships, meanwhile, have been carried on across the world for as long as we have records, even in societies which made them punishable by death. They have always been part of the landscape if not part of the legal one.

 

[Cy_33]

I have a question for the Anglo-Catholics on this thread which has probably been asked of them a million times, so I hope you’ll have patience while I bother you once more.
How do you reconcile belief in the 7 sacraments with Article XXV of the bcp?
Also, why is it that the relatively small number of Anglo-Catholics who agreed to the Affirmation of St. Louis could not remain in communion with each other?
Thanks in advance for any and all explanations.

 

[Izdaari]

I have a question for the Anglo-Catholics on this thread which has probably been asked of them a million times, so I hope you’ll have patience while I bother you once more.
How do you reconcile belief in the 7 sacraments with Article XXV of the bcp?
Also, why is it that the relatively small number of Anglo-Catholics who agreed to the Affirmation of St. Louis could not remain in communion with each other?
Thanks in advance for any and all explanations.

1. The 39 articles are not binding. They are a historical document.
2. The Affirmation of St. Louis has to do with conservative Anglicans who split off from the TEC. Why couldn’t they remain in communion with each other? I don’t know, I’m happy in the TEC. Ask them.

 

[GKC]

I have a question for the Anglo-Catholics on this thread which has probably been asked of them a million times, so I hope you’ll have patience while I bother you once more.
How do you reconcile belief in the 7 sacraments with Article XXV of the bcp?
Also, why is it that the relatively small number of Anglo-Catholics who agreed to the Affirmation of St. Louis could not remain in communion with each other?
Thanks in advance for any and all explanations.

There is no requirement for Anglicans, generally, to affirm any portion of the Articles, though many of them are unexceptional to any Trinitarian Christian. The Articles (which may be affirmed, or ignored by Anglicans in general), are theoretically binding only on ordinands of the Church of England, IAW the Act of Subscription /1571 (and that requires further nuancing). They are not, that is, any form of Anglican Confession, though nothing prevents any Anglican from treating them as such. They are theology as statecraft; how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church. I have little use for TEC’s 1979 prayer book, but the Articles therein are in the section for historical documents. So they are.

The original Anglican Church in North America (which was the name those who emerged from the St.Louis meeting took, ironically enough), was hastily formed, and the bishops consecrated not well chosen, (save, IMO, for +Morse). The reasons for the fracturing of that first attempt, into the splendiferous Continuum we all know and despair over today, is usually attributed to a keen desire not to re-invent the Elizabethan compromise (Get it right this time; do it my way), personality differences amongst the leadership, and what is called Purple Passion (You too can be a Bishop). A fair accounting of it all may be found in Douglas Bess’ DIVIDED WE STAND.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Izdaari]

Forgive me, but I suggest you really think about this one more and make sure you’re not overestimating the degree to which you reason based on natural law and underestimating how much influence the culture around you has upon you. Almost exactly the same arguments used to rationalize gay sex can be used to lower the age of consent to 12 or so. Objectively speaking, humanity has a MUCH broader history of culturally tolerating and endorsing child brides than it does gay relationships. It’s an extremely recent cultural phenonmenon to consider a 14 year old girl far too young for marriage. And natural law arguments about inherent incompatibility are rather much more obviously true in showing why two men can’t be married in the real sense of the word than it is in demonstrating why a 35 year old and a 14 year old can’t be. (Btw, that’s probably around the ages of Mary and Joseph when Jesus was born).

I might suggest that if cultural influence has been enough for TEC to cast off very clear biblical and natural law reasons that two men can’t be married, it will be a comparatively simple matter to cast off restrictions against a middle age man romancing a pubescent teenage boy once gay relationships are firmly established as ‘culturally acceptable.’ The forces of cultural manipulation simply haven’t targeted this one yet (especially because it is a scandalously useful issue with which to bludgeon catholicism in recent years, to our shame). When the time comes, they’ll use all the same methods to put a human face on those who prefer them young and tender. It will work because it’s true - evil DOESN’T remove the humanity of those who commit it, it just damages it. They remain good, but fallen men in need of a Savior. Beware those who seek to use their goodness to justify their evil as a package deal. That’s a dangerously successful strategy.

I hear you. But I am a Natural Law person, Locke’s version, and I came to it via political philosophy, not theology. We are all to some degree affected by the culture we live in, I can’t deny that. But politically and philosophically I live perhaps more in the culture of Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill than I do in the culture of today. In short, I am a Classical Liberal, and unlike many Modern Liberals, I am not offended when people disagree with me, so long as they’re reasonably polite about it.

Otherwise, I agree with what Mystophilus had to say in response.

 

[Mystophilus]

The reasons for the fracturing of that first attempt, into the splendiferous Continuum we all know and despair over today, is usually attributed to a keen desire not to re-invent the Elizabethan compromise (Get it right this time; do it my way), personality differences amongst the leadership, and what is called Purple Passion (You too can be a Bishop).

Is is possible that sheer size is also an issue? Apparently, the movement includes only about forty parishes, which somehow need four bishops between them (that Purple Passion, evidently). Being that small, the group is very vulnerable to anything, including tides of extremism in any direction.

 

[Mystophilus]

Otherwise, I agree with what Mystophilus had to say in response.

Sorry, I should not really have jumped in on that one. I was just (over?)reacting to the claims being made.

Still, I react much the same way to a fair few claims made in the opposite direction, and so perhaps it balances out?

 

[Izdaari]

Sorry, I should not really have jumped in on that one. I was just (over?)reacting to the claims being made.

Still, I react much the same way to a fair few claims made in the opposite direction, and so perhaps it balances out?

As I said, I am not offended when people disagree with me. I am even less so when they agree.

 

[manualman]

Color me unconvinced. The “adults” in consenting adults is worrisomely arbitrary. You’ll notice in my post that I nowhere suspected that religious groups would anytime soon rationalize men having sex with 5 year olds. NAMBLA isn’t particularly interested in that. They like the pubescent boys. And if you are really all that comfortable trusting that nobody could ever rationalize the idea that a 14 year old is adult enough to reason and make decisions for himself, you’re delusional. The evidence is in your face right now. Large portions of our population are willing to fight to the death for the “right” of a 14 year old girl to get an abortion without her parents permission or knowledge. Given that stark evidence of humanity’s capacity for rationalization, I find cold comfort in your assurances that it couldn’t happen.

 

[GKC]

Is is possible that sheer size is also an issue? Apparently, the movement includes only about forty parishes, which somehow need four bishops between them (that Purple Passion, evidently). Being that small, the group is very vulnerable to anything, including tides of extremism in any direction.

No. The APCK (the site you linked) is one of the four dioceses (now an independent jurisdiction), that comprised the original Anglican Church in North America at its formation. Its widely separated dioceses required Ordinaries for each. Too unwieldy for one prelate. My own jurisdiction (which was originally a part of the APCK) makes do with 2 bishops, one semi-retired due to poor health. There may be an overage of Ordinaries amongst some of the Continuum jurisdictions (I can think of one), but the Purple Passion is more expressed by the proliferation of provinces, than by a plethora of prelates in any one. For those Churches with a national presence, local episcopal oversight on a regular basis is not surprising. Which requires a miter close to hand. Or a lot of traveling.

It would take far too long (and might be obsolete by the time I finished) to trace all the splits in the Continuing movement, and new jurisdictions that have occurred in the past 30+ years. Several of the major (relatively speaking) jurisdictions are in various forms of communion, and ideas to get them all back under one tent are continuous.

For a brief education, see this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement
It’s not bad, and not complete. And there is Bess’ book.

You will note that, on your side of the Blue, you have the Free Churches, relatives of the Reformed Episcopal Church on our side, and first cousins to the Continuing Anglicans over here. The REC is closely aligned with the Continuum, and, while more reformed (as you might guess) than many Continuers, predates the movement by 125 years or so.

Anglicans are interesting, as I have noted. Not with much joy, I might add. Extremism is in the eye of the beholder. I note it in many places myself. The APCK is historically probably the most consistent and steady Anglo-Catholic Continuing jurisdiction. Non-extreme, that is. And over the years maybe 25 parishes have left for other pastures and shepherds.

GKC

GKC

 

[Mystophilus]

The “adults” in consenting adults is worrisomely arbitrary.

This is most certainly true, but in what circumstance is the age of adulthood not arbitrarily defined?

The evidence is in your face right now. Large portions of our population are willing to fight to the death for the “right” of a 14 year old girl to get an abortion without her parents permission or knowledge. Given that stark evidence of humanity’s capacity for rationalization, I find cold comfort in your assurances that it couldn’t happen.

I didn’t say that it couldn’t happen: I have read far too much history to ever make such a claim. Human society is capable of extreme degrees of perversion. What I said was that the argument for equality, which is the argument for gay rights, is not the basis upon which it would be instituted.

However, your general claim here is that cultural influence can transform Episcopalian belief so far as to draw ecclesiastical views into step with those of contemporary society. This is true, and it is true in Catholicism as well (cf. the differences between past centuries and today in the role of women, the status of non-Europeans, conceptions of mental illness, etc). A claim that Protestantism is somehow “more vulnerable” to such a thing would require some sort of historical warrant which I cannot see.

 

[manualman]

Actually, once you understand the distinctions between doctrine, discipline and Tradition and tradition, and infallibility vs impeccability it would be incumbent on each of us to point out an instance where the other altered a teaching once claimed to be part of divine revelation. I’m amatuer at this, so forgive me long windedness.

Doctrine is the substantial material of revelation. The Trinity, Original Sin, Redemptive Sacrifice of Christ, the 10 commandments, all the formal catholic teaching on matters of what is inherently right and inherently wrong. Discipline involves matters NOT doctrinal. Eating meat on Friday was never inherently sinful. A catholic who purposely ate meat on Friday in 1950 wasn’t guilty of the sin of eating meat, he was guilty of the sins of rebellion and defiance. See the difference? Disciplines can change and be repealed. Doctrines can develop in the same sort of way that an fuzzy image can be focused, but that development is never in contradiction to earlier formulations of doctrine.

Tradition (cap T) is the doctrinal content of Scripture and the teachings of the apostles. Small t tradition are the customs that catholics as humans accumulate over time. Priests hearing confession and giving absolution is Tradition. Saying mass in Latin was tradition. Tradition can’t ever be repudiated, tradition is alterable.

Finally there is the terribly misunderstood matter of infallibility. IT seems such an absurd claim to anyone who knows the all too human foibles of catholic episcopal leadership over the centuries. But only to those who don’t really comprehend the word. A great analogy I once heard goes “What’s the lowest score you can get in a math test if you are infallible in math? Answer: zero. If you’re stumped, you just have to turn in a blank test.” Infallibility of teaching doesn’t guarantee that the Magisterium will do and say the right things at the right times. Demonstrably not! What it DOES say is that the Magisterium (communion of the pope and bishops) won’t formally teach erroneous doctrine.

Knowing the above, we can now test your assertion that both catholics and episcopalians have changed beliefs over time. What catholic doctrines and Traditions have been changed to the point where they contradict earlier teaching? Please weigh carefully any you propose against the above. I’m not trying to put down the Episcopal Church here, but it’s pretty clear that it has directly reversed course from an earlier teaching (pre1930’s) that contraception is always wrong and abortion is always wrong, to a nebulous approach at best to both those issues. Same goes for homosexual activity. Can you cite similar instances in history where the catholic church reversed itself in matters of Tradition or defined doctrine? I can think of lots of disciplines and traditions that changed and examples of people, even popes, that failed to live up to catholic teaching.

You’ve asked for historical warrants and I’ve named three above. I’ve yet to hear an example where the catholic church changed something previously denounced as innately evil to a moral good or morally neutral. That’s a subsantial difference, IMO.

 

[Mystophilus]

You’ve asked for historical warrants and I’ve named three above. I’ve yet to hear an example where the catholic church changed something previously denounced as innately evil to a moral good or morally neutral. That’s a subsantial difference, IMO.

This is a fair comment: the accretive nature of Catholic theology does prevent doctrine changing from a previously-defined position, and the things which I mentioned are described within Catholicism as disciplines rather than doctrines.

In that case, I concede the point: we are more able to change doctrines. I happily describe that capacity as a strength, not a weakness, since it has brought us such things are the ordination of women, is going to bring us (the honest admission of) the ordination of gay people, and, not to overlook the obvious, is what justifies us not being Catholic.

However, I do have to admit that the greater capacity for change, whilst meaning that we can change for (in our opinion) the better, does make it more possible that we can change for the worse, and that logically applies to future cases as well as to past ones. Having said that, it also logically means that, should we change for the worse, we can reverse that change.

 

[manualman]

Well one honest concession surely deserves another. You also make a good point that a potential weakness in the catholic approach is that if we’re wrong and Christ has NOT promised that the Holy Spirit will protect the church from formally teaching erroneous doctrine, then we’re in a world of hurt if we’ve, in fact, defined things incorrectly at some point in history.

The above is a reasonable point of logic, I must conceded. Fortunately, I’m rock solid sure that Christ DID make that promise, so I’ll have to settle for waving to you from this side of the Tiber. Good discussion!

 

[Mystophilus]

Good discussion!

Indeed, thank you.

 

[vsedriver]

Not so much. The argument for allowing gay couples to have the same sorts of relationships as straight couples is based in equal rights for consenting adults.