Conservative Episcopalians

[guanophore]

Guan, there is more than 1 parish to attend Mass. And I can also meet Jesus tonight when I pray. Jesus is not only present to me at Mass.

You are right, of course. And you certainly have plenty of company abandoning a parish because a priest said something you did not like. I have done it myself.

So in other words you are now saying not only me but all here who are not Catholic are not part of the Christianity of Jesus?

No, CMatt. I am saying that the faith you have created for yourself, and that which you champion here on CAF, is a form of humanistic moral relativism that significantly departs from the Teachings of Jesus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This might sound goofy, but part of the reason I ENJOYED being an Anglican was that I felt like Catholicism and Orthodoxy had shortcomings and neither was, to itself only, the one True Church. I felt that Orthodoxy and Catholicism needed each other and that they both needed the Protestants as well. All three have something to bring to the table. The Catholics have the leadership centered and grounded, the Orthodox have an unspoiled and well-preserved devotion to all facets of worship and the mystical love for God in the liturgy, the Anglicans have the beautiful liturgy and love of Scripture and amazing choirs and ability to appreciate both sides of the spectrum remaining in the middle, and Protestants have a passion for devotion to Bible, Bible, Bible. Catholics and Orthodox go to the extreme end of the spectrum with sacraments to the detriment, IMO, of devotion to Scripture while Protestants go to the extreme end of things with the Bible lacking sacramental life. The Anglicans, I always felt, tried to appreciate both ends of the Christian experience. They tried to have a well-rounded middle ground to see the good in both. That is an Anglican strength the other two lack, the ability to say that they might be wrong, and appreciate the other ends of the equation. Since being Catholic again, I miss that and often have to catch myself. I feel the Scriptural life is lacking, the sacraments are there but I don’t feel as much grace as when I’m truly be nourished on both. I don’t think Christ gave us His Very Self just to live the sacramental life but to live that life AND the life lessons and scriptural learnings and journey. It’s tough trying to figure this all out.

I won’t speak for him but from some Catholics that is the impression that I get. I really don’t have a problem with them asserting as such if that is what they really believe. Of course they have the right to be wrong too.

 

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt. I am saying that the faith you have created for yourself, and that which you champion here on CAF, is a form of humanistic moral relativism that significantly departs from the Teachings of Jesus.

Hmm. Well ok Guan thanks for your opinion. But I think I’ll keep on professing and believing the significant teachings of Jesus being the Son of God, Who was crucified for us. Ascended into heaven. Who preached love and peace and service to the poor and the sick. And our finite minds will truly know the ultimate truth and understand all the details for certain, what’s important and what is not, when I believe by faith He shall come again in His Second Coming. Since in the meantime we walk by faith. Not by sight. And if that all means I’m a humanistic moral relativist then I’m pleased to wear the crown. Now since I’m not a conservative Episcopalian, lets try to get the topic off me…

 

[CMatt25]

This might sound goofy, but part of the reason I ENJOYED being an Anglican was that I felt like Catholicism and Orthodoxy had shortcomings and neither was, to itself only, the one True Church. I felt that Orthodoxy and Catholicism needed each other and that they both needed the Protestants as well. All three have something to bring to the table. The Catholics have the leadership centered and grounded, the Orthodox have an unspoiled and well-preserved devotion to all facets of worship and the mystical love for God in the liturgy, the Anglicans have the beautiful liturgy and love of Scripture and amazing choirs and ability to appreciate both sides of the spectrum remaining in the middle, and Protestants have a passion for devotion to Bible, Bible, Bible. Catholics and Orthodox go to the extreme end of the spectrum with sacraments to the detriment, IMO, of devotion to Scripture while Protestants go to the extreme end of things with the Bible lacking sacramental life. The Anglicans, I always felt, tried to appreciate both ends of the Christian experience. They tried to have a well-rounded middle ground to see the good in both. That is an Anglican strength the other two lack, the ability to say that they might be wrong, and appreciate the other ends of the equation. Since being Catholic again, I miss that and often have to catch myself. I feel the Scriptural life is lacking, the sacraments are there but I don’t feel as much grace as when I’m truly be nourished on both. I don’t think Christ gave us His Very Self just to live the sacramental life but to live that life AND the life lessons and scriptural learnings and journey. It’s tough trying to figure this all out.

Gurney, it does seem I’ve heard it said Episcopalians/Anglicans have considered themselves a bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism. My local Episcopalian rector formerly was a Roman priest. And the indication I have gotten from him and other Episcopalians is they seem to make sure to distinquish between Roman Catholic and Catholic. Because they have Catholic within them too.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

27 posts deleted for being off topic and shifting to personal remarks.
Return to the topic of the OP and stay there.
Thank you.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

I’m a cradle Episcopalian and will most likely die one. While I don’t agree with some of what they do, I’ll work from within to make changes that I think are in line with what Jesus would do.

What can you do from within to make changes?

 

[estesbob]

What can you do from within to make changes?

Thats how the problem occured in the first place-men trying to change the One True Church from within to fit their view of the Truth. Since the “reformation” the Truth is fungible-based on the whim the current culture. Even if they can work from within to change it that will be the “Truth” only until the culture spawns a new group who will impose their version of the Truth.

 

[manualman]

Yes, there is a difference between a church accepting homosexuality and the behavior of a church’s members. However when an institution tacitly supports homosexuality by studied inattention to the problem it presents, it comes perilously close to accepting it.

Notre Dame in New Orleans. St. Mary’s in Baltimore was called the “Pink Palace”.

see this articlepolitics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976893076

As fundies are fond of pointing out, you can find instances of popes committing illicit sex too. But that’s still different than finding a pope that TEACHES that illicit sex is not morally wrong. Catholicism is lead by Christ and his example. The stewardship of the apostles extends to teaching, but not example.

Google finds only two references to “Notre Flame”, once being a refernece to Michael Rose’s well known book. The other is this: killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/confessions-of-an-ex-seminarian/ Two hits hardly makes it a well known thing!

It’s an interesting article, but I think either he or Rose misses a crucial point. (I haven’t read Rose’s book). The exseminarian claims that Rose argues essentially that the liberal takeover after Vatican 2 caused the problems, then labels that a fallacy since so many abuse cases predate V2. To me, this seems to expose the authors ignorance of the influence of modernists within the Church hierarchy decades before Vatican2. Indeed, it would not have been possible for the changes that occurred after the council to be so radically different than the council documents themselves had this cabal not already been largely in place beforehand.

No, I think what Rose found was not created after V2, it was a powerful minority well beforehand. On topic, this is relevant because of the distinction I’ve been trying to make all along. In catholicism we’ve got at least our share of problems with sin, but they never rise to the level of error in doctrine. Given the amount of depravity in human and catholic history, that fact alone argues for Divine protection of Church teaching!