Episcopal Church Draws the Line

[Roamin_Xian]

Glorified Country Club…lol

Let me share my experience just yesterday with you. I was asked by our priest to go to one of our shops out in town to get some information printed up for the Church. I walked into the store with another woman from “St. Country Club”. The woman behind the desk looked at my friend before we spoke and said “I know who you are. You feed me when I was homeless. You are over at St. Country Club” I will tell you that my friend’s eyes and my eyes teared up because it was a very moving experience. Talk about hearing His voice!! By the way, this woman behind the desk is off the streets because of some wonderful Christian that gave her a hand.

I am a proud member of St. Country Club! Praise God!

God Bless!

Nice to see your posts as always, emerald coast!

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Interestingly enough, I was speaking with a prominent Anglican priest here in the Central Valley of California. He’s a great guy and a member of the diocese that courageously broke off from the Episcopal Church a year or so ago. He told me, “Scott, our church is in crisis and we are fervently praying to the Lord to renew the diocese and the church in general. Episcopal churches have steadily turned into nothing more than religious-looking, glorified rotary clubs in the last thirty years. We get together, we all feel good about ourselves, we do some charity, and we have a bunch of activities. But religiously we have gotten into a fill-in-the-blank theology and there is little depth. The Episcopal Church epitomizes the intellectual country club member that has lost touch with traditional, orthodox Anglicanism.” That’s a direct quote from this higher-up priest.

This was rather a hurtful post for me, as a “year old” received Episcopalian. I can report that the Diocese of North Carolina is going just fine thank you, and my parish of St. Christopher’s received or confirmed 10 new people this year (largest since 1978, and four more than my inquirers class last year). The Episcopalians I know are people who believe in the Great Commission and the social justice ministry of Jesus Christ, focusing on the essentials of Christian mission. I believe in the Bible and the creeds of the Church- I don’t “fill in blanks” so to speak.

I will point out that many Catholics have “fill-in-the-blank” theology; you could say many Catholic churches have become “rotary clubs” as well then. All you have to do is look at polls discussing various topics of theology and social policy to find that many or most Catholics dissent from the Vatican line. This be a double-edged sword, my friend.

Certainly you wouldn’t claim that Tony Blair is a devout Catholic! Democratic Senators Kerry, Dodd, and Kennedy, Governors Sebelius, Richardson, and Baldacci, and Vice President Biden (among countless other elected officials with Catholic affiliation) certainly don’t make your roster of the faithful! Really want to go with the rotary club argument?

Like some of my fellow Piskys, I’m not going to stand idle and watch my church be flogged by misconceptions.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Dauphin, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the opening post, but now you’re just being mean. And uncharitable.

Spirit Meadow, would it be less infllamatory if RC’s would refer to “female ministers”? Even if that term is less precise, from our perspective.

I believe that “in persona Christi” has primarily to do with celebrating/offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I recall that Catholics are encouraged to reject the “little t” “traditions of men,” which is in opposition to Tradition. Gender discrimination is a “tradition of men,” and in no place of the Scriptures did Christ ever limit his ministry only to men. Women features prominently in his company of faithful apostles/disciples.

 

[rpp]

The government couldn’t take action against me if I did you an “ni” instead of an “ne”. And the community I hear the word “n—er” the most from is (surprise!) the Negro community. I refuse to let our vocabulary be mangled by the whims and fashions of society. Our language must be precise and accurate. I don’t know if you have ever read “1984” by George Orwell; in the novel, he demonstrates how limiting vocabulary and watering down a language (“doublespeak”) limits our thought and expression, and makes it easier for us to be oppressed by outside forces. “Negro” is more accurate than “African American” (which, when used accurately, would cover white Americans of Dutch South African descent, or Egyptian or Moroccan Americans who are Arab, not Negro). In the same way, “Asian” is not as precise as “Mongoloid”. Indians and Pakistanis are Asian; Turks, Russians, Indians, Arabs, Persians (all of which are actually of the Caucasian race, just different sub-categories from Northern Europeans) are Asian too–why do we limit “Asian” to Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc.?

Because English is a living language, it changes with time. The speaking and writing style of 50, 100, 200 years ago is increasingly different than it is today. You are defending the indefensible.

 

[rpp]

This was rather a hurtful post for me, as a “year old” received Episcopalian. I can report that the Diocese of North Carolina is going just fine thank you, and my parish of St. Christopher’s received or confirmed 10 new people this year (largest since 1978, and four more than my inquirers class last year). The Episcopalians I know are people who believe in the Great Commission and the social justice ministry of Jesus Christ, focusing on the essentials of Christian mission. I believe in the Bible and the creeds of the Church- I don’t “fill in blanks” so to speak.

I will point out that many Catholics have “fill-in-the-blank” theology; you could say many Catholic churches have become “rotary clubs” as well then. All you have to do is look at polls discussing various topics of theology and social policy to find that many or most Catholics dissent from the Vatican line. This be a double-edged sword, my friend.

Certainly you wouldn’t claim that Tony Blair is a devout Catholic! Democratic Senators Kerry, Dodd, and Kennedy, Governors Sebelius, Richardson, and Baldacci, and Vice President Biden (among countless other elected officials with Catholic affiliation) certainly don’t make your roster of the faithful! Really want to go with the rotary club argument?

Like some of my fellow Piskys, I’m not going to stand idle and watch my church be flogged by misconceptions.

Umm, where are the female Catholic priestesses and bishops? Where are the openly gay, proudly living with their partner Catholic bishops, Where are the Catholic Bishops standing shoulder to shoulder with NARAL and proclaiming that abortionists to “holy work”?

You may have found gurneyhalleck’s posts painful, so did I. However, what he posted is consistent with what has been published in many places. There were no misconceptions in his post; it was a painful truth.

The fact that you can point to individual Catholics who do not support the faith is quite different than an episcopal hierarchy that does not support the faith and alters their moral stance. The truth is that faithful Anglican clergy, such as those in the Oxford Movement and the Traditional Anglican Communion in the Anglican Church, are the exception in the USA and the UK.

 

[Feanor2]

To call a Anglican priest a “priestess” and to call the Episcopal Church a “country club” is demeaning,uncharitable and meant to be so. Who are you kidding. You don’t want discussion, you want to engage in bashing a non-RC faith tradition.

As to the rest, I believe a certain priest of the RCC thought nothing of claiming the Holocaust was a lie and that is very scary as well. Let’s not continue to reduce this to the mud okay?

I believe you are right,

I certainly don’t agree with ordaining women and feel it is really strange but no one needs to be derogatory.

I will call them “priests” as that is their title. They are valid Episcopalian ministers.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Please- plenty of articles have been posted on “liberal priests and bishops” at odds with the Roman Catholic Church. There is Sister Joan Chichester. Jacques Gaillot, a bishop of France (believe he was sacked, but ‘once a priest, always a priest.’) Certainly numerous Jesuits are labelled as “deviants” in regards to Vatican doctrine (taught by Jesuits, so I hvae nothing against them).

Obviously, you have no “official” Catholic female priests, as it’s not permitted under current guidelines. Many women have attained ordination and were censured/excommunicated for it by the Vatican.

And who knows what most priests/bishops ponder in the inner chambers of their hearts and minds? You don’t fully know if they ascribed to every iota of Vatican dogma. Of course you won’t have the fever pitch of liberal bishops as the Protestants do.

Does the official hierarchy of the Anglican Communion deny the doctrines and ministry related to Jesus Christ? I failed to notice that. Oh right, we forgot to endorse doctrines introduced in the middle 19th century, among other much later adaptations. You are trying to wreck an entire communion from the actions of individual leaders. Unfair.

 

[Feanor2]

Please- plenty of articles have been posted on “liberal priests and bishops” at odds with the Roman Catholic Church. There is Sister Joan Chichester. Jacques Gaillot, a bishop of France (believe he was sacked, but ‘once a priest, always a priest.’) Certainly numerous Jesuits are labelled as “deviants” in regards to Vatican doctrine (taught by Jesuits, so I hvae nothing against them).

Obviously, you have no “official” Catholic female priests, as it’s not permitted under current guidelines. Many women have attained ordination and were censured/excommunicated for it by the Vatican.

And who knows what most priests/bishops ponder in the inner chambers of their hearts and minds? You don’t fully know if they ascribed to every iota of Vatican dogma. Of course you won’t have the fever pitch of liberal bishops as the Protestants do.

Does the official hierarchy of the Anglican Communion deny the doctrines and ministry related to Jesus Christ? I failed to notice that. Oh right, we forgot to endorse doctrines introduced in the middle 19th century, among other much later adaptations. You are trying to wreck an entire communion from the actions of individual leaders. Unfair.

So here is part of the problem. The Church cannot ordain women. Christ did not give that authority. To suggest that the Catholic Church has somehow “ordained” women invites a negative response by Catholics.

For me, and it’s just me, charity would lend a catholic to be respectful of VALIDLY ordained Episcopalian priests (including women) and for Episcopalians to acknowledge the true Doctrine of the Catholic Church ( male Priesthood).

Since, in the Church’s view, Episcopalian/Anglican clergy are not in apostalic succession a Catholic should not be overly concerned.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

So here is part of the problem. The Church cannot ordain women. Christ did not give that authority. To suggest that the Catholic Church has somehow “ordained” women invites a negative response by Catholics.

For me, and it’s just me, charity would lend a catholic to be respectful of VALIDLY ordained Episcopalian priests (including women) and for Episcopalians to acknowledge the true Doctrine of the Catholic Church ( male Priesthood).

Since, in the Church’s view, Episcopalian/Anglican clergy are not in apostalic succession a Catholic should not be overly concerned.

Christ didn’t say many things- Christ didn’t authorize the Assumption of His Mother either.

He didn’t NOT say it either, on the fact of female clergy. He clearly had women in key positions of his movement. Too bad the Bible hadn’t created the word “secretary” yet, I suppose.

 

[Feanor2]

Christ didn’t say many things- Christ didn’t authorize the Assumption of His Mother either.

He didn’t NOT say it either, on the fact of female clergy. He clearly had women in key positions of his movement. Too bad the Bible hadn’t created the word “secretary” yet, I suppose.

So we see this is really a matter of one’s faith. No one needs to be derogatory to the other but perhaps to discuss the things we have in common.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

So we see this is really a matter of one’s faith. No one needs to be derogatory to the other but perhaps to discuss the things we have in common.

Amen to that!

 

[Peter_J]

4Squarebaby,

I largely agree with you, but I think your advice to “use the name that community wishes to use” is a wee bit of an over-simplification.

Let me ask you this … There are a large number of Catholics out there who claim that the phrase “the Roman Catholic Church” is offensive, and that everyone should call us “the Catholic Church”. Do you?

 

[Peter_J]

I recall that Catholics are encouraged to reject the “little t” “traditions of men,” which is in opposition to Tradition.

Certainly we are supposed to reject the traditions which are in opposition to Tradition. But there can also be traditions which are not in opposition to Tradition.

Gender discrimination is a “tradition of men,” and in no place of the Scriptures did Christ ever limit his ministry only to men.

That’s your opinion. Catholics and a lot of Protestants think otherwise.

 

[4Squarebaby]

4Squarebaby,

I largely agree with you, but I think your advice to “use the name that community wishes to use” is a wee bit of an over-simplification.

Let me ask you this … There are a large number of Catholics out there who claim that the phrase “the Roman Catholic Church” is offensive, and that everyone should call us the Catholic Church. Do you?

Yes I would. On another board I was told that the correct phrase was Latin Catholic and that the Church was using that. In my speech I started to try to use Latin Catholic just as a young man who wentr to college and learned that Oriental was not acceptable I began to use Asian.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes I would. On another board I was told that the correct phrase was Latin Catholic and that the Church was using that. In my speech I started to try to use Latin Catholic just as a young man who wentr to college and learned that Oriental was not acceptable I began to use Asian.

Actually, “Latin Catholic” refers only to those Catholics who use the Western (I.e. Latin) Rite.

For referring to all those who are in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI, the correct term to use is either “the Catholic Church” or “the Roman Catholic Church”.

 

[Peter_J]

Please- plenty of articles have been posted on “liberal priests and bishops” at odds with the Roman Catholic Church. There is Sister Joan Chichester. Jacques Gaillot, a bishop of France (believe he was sacked, but ‘once a priest, always a priest.’) Certainly numerous Jesuits are labelled as “deviants” in regards to Vatican doctrine (taught by Jesuits, so I hvae nothing against them).

Obviously, you have no “official” Catholic female priests, as it’s not permitted under current guidelines. Many women have attained ordination and were censured/excommunicated for it by the Vatican.

Sounds like you’re trying to prove rpp’s point. Or are you saying that sacking and excommunication, respectively, are not strong enough penalties for the individuals in question?

 

[LRThunder]

Christ didn’t say many things- Christ didn’t authorize the Assumption of His Mother either.

He didn’t NOT say it either, on the fact of female clergy. He clearly had women in key positions of his movement. Too bad the Bible hadn’t created the word “secretary” yet, I suppose.

The fact is Jesus could’ve chosen women as some of his disciples, but he did not. That’s not to say women can’t talk about Jesus, or teach a religious education class, but that only men can be clergy. And even then, not all males can be clergy either.

The problem with the women’s ordination movement is they see it as a “right” (no such right), or a career with power (it’s a vocation, not a career).

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Certainly we are supposed to reject the traditions which are in opposition to Tradition. But there can also be traditions which are not in opposition to Tradition.

That’s your opinion. Catholics and a lot of Protestants think otherwise.

No where does Christ authorize it my friend.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The fact is Jesus could’ve chosen women as some of his disciples, but he did not. That’s not to say women can’t talk about Jesus, or teach a religious education class, but that only men can be clergy. And even then, not all males can be clergy either.

The problem with the women’s ordination movement is they see it as a “right” (no such right), or a career with power (it’s a vocation, not a career).

So I guess Mary Magdalene and other women were in the movement just to “support the men.” Polish their sandals, I reckon? Yeah…no. Women were intimately involved in the workings of Jesus’ movement.

 

[GKC]

So I guess Mary Magdalene and other women were in the movement just to “support the men.” Polish their sandals, I reckon? Yeah…no. Women were intimately involved in the workings of Jesus’ movement.

But no women selected as apostles. Hence, no women in apostolic succession.

GKC