differance between catholic & Episcopal church

[GKC]

Amy,

From some of the above, it would appear that you are indeed in synch with much of the current ECUSA thinking. I’m an outsider here, and will refrain from arguing against your points, invalid though I think most of them to be. I do hope your fellow RCs will set forth the Church teachings for you, adequately to keep you in orthodoxy.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[David_Zampino]

Amy,

You make some good points, which I want to partially address. (Some bits edited for length.)

1. I believe I have the right to vote for any party or person in a US election that I feel is the best candidate for that office. I was there in 2004 and it hurt deeply the rhetoric that was being flung around.

I’m not quite sure that I understand the relevance here.

2. I believe that if I were an office holder in government, that I have the right to carry out the wishes of the voters who put me in office even when those wishes are contrary to the Church. People have been objecting to Dick Durbin’s (my Senator) votes, but he reflects, fairly well, the voters who put him in office. I suppose I would say that the officeholder is more a servant of his constituents than an individual.

I suspect that we have a fundamental disagreement here – a disagreement which goes back many hundreds to years, even to England when the very notion of a popularly elected Parliament was a novelty. Voters not only elect a legislator for his or her qualifications, but also for their judgement. The legislator has the right – even the responsibility – to ignore the wishes of those who elected him/her if such violates their honest judgement. To insist that a legislator is slavishly bound to the majority opinion of his/her constituiants is a fundamental misunderstanding of republican (the principle, not the political party) government.

Unfortunately, what we see today – with both parties (I’m an independent) – but, frankly, mostly with the Democrats is an utter neglect of this fundamental principle. In the 2004 election, certain elements (not all) of the Democratic party were, in my view, totally neglecting the needs of their constitutiants in the name of political correctness. Where are the Harry Trumans, the John Kennedeys, the Henry (Scoop) Jacksons, the Hubert Humphreys of the party? Effectively silenced by the fringe element who tends to be able to yell the loudest.

3. I disagree with Humanae Vitae (though on intellectual grounds alone as it doesn’t apply in practice) because it argues from Natural Law. I don’t think we yet understand all of nature in the scientific community, so to say there is a complete and settled Natural law, that we understand in its totality is not something I could agree with. On the other hand, I have nothing against JPII’s Theology of the Body as it was argued from a different vantage point.

I think that you’re confusing the philosophical concept of Natural Law with scientific laws of nature. Two different principles here. I would like to suggest to you CS Lewis’s book “The Abolition of Man” for an excellent discussion of Natural Law as a philosophical concept.

4. I disagree with the argument put forth as the reason we have no women priests.

Not going to address this right at this time. Too many issues for one post.

5. I believe that gay couples should be able to receive the civil benefits of marriage. I’m not saying the Church has to recognize their unions–after all, it doesn’t recognize civil marriages following divorce. I’m certainly not saying the Church has to perform commitment ceremonies or be involved in any way.

What “civil benefits” are you speaking of? Private companies can currently do as they like with regard to such things . . . and as private companies, they can do as they please. With regard to medical and/or end-of-life decisions, inheritance, etc., this is a non-issue (although the gay lobby has tried to make it one). With a little planning, anyone can designate anyone at all to make medical decisions, etc.

Now if you are talking about government benefits, esp. forced government benefits, you run into serious difficulties. It is morally problematic to force another to bear a financial burden (tax dollars) to fund something they believe to be morally repugnant, which is why taxpayer funded abortions have been so controversial over the years.

6. A lot of little things. Sometimes I’ll see something, like the Church in Brazil refusing to marry a paraplegic man because he’s impotent, I just can’t see that. Jesus healed the lame on the Sabbath (an action considered sinful at the time) and this impediment can’t be dispensed?

Again, not going to tackle this one here. Perhaps more later.

Blessings,

 

[ClaudineJohnson]

Pious:

I was the head alter server in my younger days in the Anglican church and we did not have a tabernacle at church (although the parish church in town did) we also had a woman who was given permission from the Bishop to distribute the wine at communion (not sure what her title would have been)

Which diocese would that have been?

Thanks, Claudine

 

[ClaudineJohnson]

a_cermak:

Nothing rash here, it’s been 2 years since I stopped practicing in any meaningful sense of the word. And I would really rather not live out the rest of my life as an Apostate. At least embracing another Church would give me the chance of not identifying myself by that with which I disagree.

And the “diciness” is all a matter of which parish one attends. There are several in my area and one in particular that appeals to me. And one doesn’t have to believe some of the more outre things that can be proposed at some of the edgier churches and bishops.

Pax,

Amy

Amy,

I know this is not the popular thinking of the day, but I always thought the quest for God, and therefore the quest for how to worship Him, was basically based on a search for Truth.

What I think you’re saying is that you find one church more comfortable for you than the other – not that you have spent time searching for Truth and believe you have found it to a greater degree in the Episcopal Church than in the Roman Catholic Church. Now I realize my thinking would be considered “dated” by a large number of today’s young people, but I would think the point ought to be to try to understand God’s message, then align oneself with that as sincerely as possible. I just don’t understand the point of religion when a person sets up the rules to please themself.

I’d like to add a word from my late mother, a faithful Methodist. At one point in my teens I’d questioned whether it was really necessary to follow some moral teaching of the Methodist Church (circa mid 20th Century). Her reply was that when one’s view is at odds with their church, one needs to be very sure who is right – the individual or the church. I just ask you to consider something like that. Please be honest with yourself.

Best wishes,

Claudine

 

[a_cermak]

It’s been 2 years, and I’m really sure of this. I have felt such a wonderful sense of peace since I started attending services there.

Also, I’m involved in politics and I really don’t need the headache of my religion becoming an issue in future races should I move up the rungs. A dissident Catholic can have their religion become an issue in a race. I’ve never, ever seen that happen with an Episcopalian.

Pax,
Amy

 

[TobyLue]

One difference that I didnt see mentioned is that Anglicans will admit married men to the priesthood but not in the RCC, unless they get special dispensation like my priest did who came from the Anglican Church.

 

[GKC]

Amy,

“…A dissident Catholic can have their religion become an issue in a race. I’ve never, ever seen that happen with an Episcopalian”.

Eheu, this is probably correct. Does it seem like a reason to be Episcopalian, to you? Are your political aspirations a good measure of your reason for belonging to any church? In light of what ClaudineJohnson said about the search for truth, a post or so above?

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[GKC]

TobyLue:

One difference that I didnt see mentioned is that Anglicans will admit married men to the priesthood but not in the RCC, unless they get special dispensation like my priest did who came from the Anglican Church.

Yes, that is a part of the Pastoral Provision, relating to the Anglican Use.

GKC

 

[boppysbud]

I consider myself confused. I am officially a member of the Roman Catholic church, but their are things that I definately disgree with, and the Church with Pope Benedict seems to be moving ever further to the far right with no dissent allowed.

It seems that I get it “wrong” going all ways, forinstanse I hate the Novus Ordo Mass with it’s “me n my good buddy Jesus” casual languague and guitar music and even rock music.

At least a lot of Episcopal parishes still have pipe organs and use reverent riteI language, no rock bands there at least that I have heard.

I definately oppose the “no compromise” speech regarding life issues, what good does it do to call a fertilised ova a “baby” and even “Child” they keep getting older in the rhetoric soon they will be called “graduate student” no disagreement allowed. At the same time the same people who oppose abortion are all for the Iraq war and capital punuishment. I think all llives are the same, and all holy, exageration does gets people upset. Going around screaming (Baby killers) saves no lives.

Now about the “Orthodox” Anglicans (Not Episcopalians) I have found that Orthodox Anglicans refers not to what one would think as orthodox,(the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the literal ressurection of Our Lord) but is frequently a code word for homophobia. In another forum where I read often and occasionally “Orthodox” refers not to the Virgin Birth et all, but instead to and overweaning hatred of homosexuals regardless of their theological convictions.

 

[a_cermak]

GKC,

It’s way, way down the list, but it is there.

What I find loveable about ECUSA and the parish I’ve found is that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available also Anointing of the Sick, the Real Presence is believed in, the liturgy is lovely, I can feel God speaking to me through it. I’m getting into the Daily Office and it, too, brings me peace.

I don’t have to give up Mary, my Mother, in fact, Our Lady has a presence in the church I’ve been attending. I don’t even have to give up my beloved Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Edition).

And when my child (a girl, they think!) is born, I will be able to pronounce the promises and know that I can keep them. That gives me a lot of peace too.

And in ECUSA, I am allowed to use my reason in interpreting Scriptures and in determining how my and other people’s lives should be led.

Pax,
Amy

 

[GKC]

Amy,

Within limits, I agree with you, though the political thing is a puzzler. Might one then engage a PR research firm to determine the most politically advantageous faith community to espouse, in a given race? And you will recognise that it is difficult for me as an Anglican to make the sort of categorical arguements for remaining in the RCC that I hope the local RCs here will make for you. And certainly the arguements of *Apostolicae Curae * are not ones I would urge on you.

Yet, the central point of AC is germane: the validity of orders. I doubt that the issue of female “ordination” is one that will perturb you, but it certainly is a killer for me. Ladies in mitres and sacerdotal garments are a black hole at the heart of the Catholic essence of Anglicanism, which will eventually destroy it institutionally, and which negates all the points you make here, points with which I certainly agree, in themselves.

And is it the nature of Christ’s Church that you should be able to deterrmine how your life is to be led, without let or hindrance? Any limits on that? And if you can feel sure of keeping the promises (mine child was a girl, too), is it because the threshold you must meet is so much lower?

Pax tecum.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

a_cermak:

GKC,

It’s way, way down the list, but it is there.

What I find loveable about ECUSA and the parish I’ve found is that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available also Anointing of the Sick, the Real Presence is believed in, the liturgy is lovely, I can feel God speaking to me through it. I’m getting into the Daily Office and it, too, brings me peace.

I don’t have to give up Mary, my Mother, in fact, Our Lady has a presence in the church I’ve been attending. I don’t even have to give up my beloved Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Edition).

And when my child (a girl, they think!) is born, I will be able to pronounce the promises and know that I can keep them. That gives me a lot of peace too.

And in ECUSA, I am allowed to use my reason in interpreting Scriptures and in determining how my and other people’s lives should be led.

Pax,
Amy

 

[GKC]

boppysbud:

I consider myself confused. …

…Now about the “Orthodox” Anglicans (Not Episcopalians) I have found that Orthodox Anglicans refers not to what one would think as orthodox,(the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the literal ressurection of Our Lord) but is frequently a code word for homophobia. In another forum where I read often and occasionally “Orthodox” refers not to the Virgin Birth et all, but instead to and overweaning hatred of homosexuals regardless of their theological convictions.

Then I fear your exposure to orthodox or traditional or Continuing Anglicans has been sadly deficient, and your opening statement is sadly accurate, on this point.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[a_cermak]

GKC:

Amy,

Within limits, I agree with you, though the political thing is a puzzler. Might one then engage a PR research firm to determine the most politically advantageous faith community to espouse, in a given race? And you will recognise that it is difficult for me as an Anglican to make the sort of categorical arguements for remaining in the RCC that I hope the local RCs here will make for you. And certainly the arguements of *Apostolicae Curae * are not ones I would urge on you.

Yet, the central point of AC is germane: the validity of orders. I doubt that the issue of female “ordination” is one that will perturb you, but it certainly is a killer for me. Ladies in mitres and sacerdotal garments are a black hole at the heart of the Catholic essence of Anglicanism, which will eventually destroy it institutionally, and which negates all the points you make here, points with which I certainly agree, in themselves.

And is it the nature of Christ’s Church that you should be able to deterrmine how your life is to be led, without let or hindrance? Any limits on that? And if you can feel sure of keeping the promises (mine child was a girl, too), is it because the threshold you must meet is so much lower?

Pax tecum.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I could just see that issues report! I’m sure they’d come up with United Church of Christ around here as being the most advantageous as far as rules, membership etc.

You are right I have no problem with women priests and bishops. In fact, my niece is a priest! She moved over when she got her vocation to discern it and after a year of prayer she entered the seminary. She was ordained as priest a couple of years ago after getting her M.Div.

I can say the promises because I honestly believe them. I can’t
promise to accept the Pope as the Vicar of Christ because I don’t believe it. I find the ECUSA model of using councils of the lay people, the Bishops and the clergy to be more inline with how I believe the Holy Spirit moves within all people.

What I meant was that I can use my reason to determine how my life and others’ should be led. That means, obviously, considering the requirements of Christ and my religion in my life. For instance, although it’s obviously not germane to my life (Joannah was created in the natural way), I have no problem with gay marriage because I feel it better they commit to one another than repeatedly commit fornication.

Pax,
Amy

 

[Melanie01]

Whilst I did not read every single message so far posted noone has comented on the validity of Episcoplian ordinations. The minister of the Episc. Church cannot be recognised as such by the RCC as he has not received Holy Orders from a validly ordained bishop recognised in the RCC.

 

[GKC]

Melanie01:

Whilst I did not read every single message so far posted noone has comented on the validity of Episcoplian ordinations. The minister of the Episc. Church cannot be recognised as such by the RCC as he has not received Holy Orders from a validly ordained bishop recognised in the RCC.

Oh, it’s been alluded to a couple of times, above. That’s what the reference to *Apostolicae Curae * means. And, historically, your last sentence is not accurate, even within the terms of Apostolicae Curae. My own rector’s ordination was by a bishop whose lineage included the PNCC, whose episcopal orders are recognised by the RCC. But, if Amy is satisfied with the concept of a female in sacerdotal garments, I doubt the opinions that appeared over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896 are going to affect her.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Amy,

As I said, there are parts of your logic I agree with. And, as I think I said, once, you appear to be well suited to the current state of ECUSA. To me that is not a thing to be happy with, but I wish you well.

RCs, have you anything to say to your separated sister?

GKC

a_cermak:

I could just see that issues report! I’m sure they’d come up with United Church of Christ around here as being the most advantageous as far as rules, membership etc.

You are right I have no problem with women priests and bishops. In fact, my niece is a priest! She moved over when she got her vocation to discern it and after a year of prayer she entered the seminary. She was ordained as priest a couple of years ago after getting her M.Div.

I can say the promises because I honestly believe them. I can’t
promise to accept the Pope as the Vicar of Christ because I don’t believe it. I find the ECUSA model of using councils of the lay people, the Bishops and the clergy to be more inline with how I believe the Holy Spirit moves within all people.

What I meant was that I can use my reason to determine how my life and others’ should be led. That means, obviously, considering the requirements of Christ and my religion in my life. For instance, although it’s obviously not germane to my life (Joannah was created in the natural way), I have no problem with gay marriage because I feel it better they commit to one another than repeatedly commit fornication.

Pax,
Amy

 

[TobyLue]

I have no problem with gay marriage because I feel it better they commit to one another than repeatedly commit fornication.

It’s fornication whichever way and from whatever angle you look at it.
In other words what you are saying is lets declare this sin as no longer a sin. Let’s change Gods word. ABC used to be sinful, but according to all, but the CC, it’s no longer a sin. Let’s go ahead any allow and hereby declare that it will no longer be sinful for parents to marry their children, because it would be better that they show some commitment rather than they commit incest. Let’s go ahead and hereby declare that a whole group of people may commit themselves to one another and bless them as a marriage rather than they repeatedly be involved in sexual orgies. See where this is taking us?

 

[boppysbud]

GKC I fear that it is you who has failed to read the multitude of blogs and other sources that are published by the radical right “Anglican” not Episcopalian schismatics.

They take uniform glee in calling the Bishop of New Hampshire “bishop” Vicki.
Calling Episcopalians who fail to hate homosexuals enough as “revisionists”, while they who do hate homosexuals are given the code word “Orthodox”

I am as conservative as they come, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, *I *believe in the Holy Trinity, the Literal Ressurection of Our Lord, I can recite the creed with out crossing my fingers meaning every word I say, yet all for naught, since I fail to hate homosexuals and women sufficiently I am defined as an Unorthodox “revisionist”.

 

[ClaudineJohnson]

boppysbud:

I consider myself confused. I am officially a member of the Roman Catholic church, but their are things that I definately disgree with, and the Church with Pope Benedict seems to be moving ever further to the far right with no dissent allowed.

Have you explored the foundation of the doctrines that you disagree with? I’m personally very happy with Pope Benedict, in all ways but his age. I’d like him to be younger, so we’d have him longer. Actually I question whether those of the current generation who disagree with Church teaching have actually studied those teachings, and certainly doubt that they have studied them with anything near an open mind. Properly understood, I find they make excellent sense.

boppysbud:

IIt seems that I get it “wrong” going all ways, forinstanse I hate the Novus Ordo Mass with it’s “me n my good buddy Jesus” casual languague and guitar music and even rock music.

Agreed.

boppysbud:

At least a lot of Episcopal parishes still have pipe organs and use reverent riteI language, no rock bands there at least that I have heard.

Yes, but as I see it (and as the RCC says), they don’t possess valid ordinations. So in the end, what do you have?

boppysbud:

I definately oppose the “no compromise” speech regarding life issues, what good does it do to call a fertilised ova a “baby” and even “Child” they keep getting older in the rhetoric soon they will be called “graduate student” no disagreement allowed. At the same time the same people who oppose abortion are all for the Iraq war and capital punuishment. I think all llives are the same, and all holy, exageration does gets people upset. Going around screaming (Baby killers) saves no lives.

Since I was acquainted with our society before Roe v. Wade, let me assure you that prior to that date there didn’t seem to be a question about whether human life began at conception. Unfortunately much of modern society seems to be confusing “what’s legal” for “what’s moral.” The State isn’t where we should be forming our consciences. We should look to the Church for that. Now prior to Roe v. Wade they were generally the same thing, but there’s a lot that is accepted in today’s world that actually opposes what I would recognize as “moral living.” Part of my understanding on the killing of: (A) killing the pre-born, (C) using capital punishment, or (C) killing in wars, is this. “A” is distinguished by being unquestionably an act of killing an innocent being. “B” is an act of the State killing someone convicted of a very serious crime. “C” is an act of the State being at war, and as such is considered self-defense. Even if one disagrees with a particular war, I don’t see how it can be considered on the same plane as the killing of a true innocent. Only “A” is a truly innocent being.

boppysbud:

Now about the “Orthodox” Anglicans (Not Episcopalians) I have found that Orthodox Anglicans refers not to what one would think as orthodox,(the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the literal ressurection of Our Lord) but is frequently a code word for homophobia. In another forum where I read often and occasionally “Orthodox” refers not to the Virgin Birth et all, but instead to and overweaning hatred of homosexuals regardless of their theological convictions.

I just don’t know about the folks at that forum. I’m completely unfamiliar with such a use of “Orthodox”. It really sounds to me like people who have moved into an unorthodox position with respect to beliefs, now wanting to find some way to make their orthodox brethern look bad. I wonder if the orthodox ones REALLY hate homosexuals, or perhaps just continue to take the old fashioned position that homosexual acts (not the same as the people who are drawn to that) are opposed to God’s teaching. This is the sort of smear game we generally see played by political candidates who are out to smear their opposition.

 

[GKC]

Well, let’s try defining our terms and see if it gets us anywhere. First, as I recall, you are a RC, not any flavor of Anglican, yes?

Anyone referred to as an orthodox Anglican, as found in this country, post 1978, is most likely a member of one of the Continuing Anglican Churches. From some perspectives, though not their own, they might be called schismatic. Any group not within the Continuum, or not a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church (which is a different sort of Anglican) is most likely marginal to any historical definition of Anglicanism.

Do the people you refer to belong to one of the jurisidictions collectively referred to as the Continuum? Or are they some group that stands in relation to orthodox Anglicanism as the Liberal Catholic Church stands in relation to the RCC?

Do not get me wrong. I have no doubt that almost all traditional Anglicans uphold the traditional views of the undivided Church on homosexuality (which is *not * to hate homosexuals). Precisely as they do on the issues of the Virgin birth, the Real Presence, the doctrines of the Creeds, etc. But I know what it was that caused the break with EUSA in the first place, after the St. Louis meeting, in 1978. It was the liturgy, not homosexuality. And I know what the next major issue was. It was female “ordination”, not homosexuality. And the Episcopalians who espoused the heterodox positions in question, who now own ECUSA, were revisionists. Apostates, too. AS they are now, on homosexuality. All part of a whole. And I even know what has been an open secret in Anglicanism for many, many years, about the propensity of homosexuals in the Church to be attracted to the Anglo-Catholic position. In other words, I’m an Anglican. And I fear I remain unconvinced that you know more about them than I do.

So, who are these "orthodox Anglicans you refer to? ACA? ACC. APCK?

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

boppysbud:

GKC I fear that it is you who has failed to read the multitude of blogs and other sources that are published by the radical right “Anglican” not Episcopalian schismatics.

They take uniform glee in calling the Bishop of New Hampshire “bishop” Vicki.
Calling Episcopalians who fail to hate homosexuals enough as “revisionists”, while they who do hate homosexuals are given the code word “Orthodox”

I am as conservative as they come, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, *I *believe in the Holy Trinity, the Literal Ressurection of Our Lord, I can recite the creed with out crossing my fingers meaning every word I say, yet all for naught, since I fail to hate homosexuals and women sufficiently I am defined as an Unorthodox “revisionist”.