Episcopal Church in US approves same-sex weddings [CWN]

[commenter]

I urge posters to avoid posting statistics on which denomination is losing members faster, as if that proves a point. Church growth and shrinkage can both be caused by true or false preaching. They also are related to demographic changes, immigration, and especially by inroads of secularism. A church that is really preaching true doctrine may lose, while a non denominational church preaching very little doctrine may grow.

In addition, statistics are notoriously inaccurate, especially comparing one denomination to another, or one year to another. In my own diocese, figures vary wildly, depending on many factors: average attendance vs registered families; families vs individuals; how long since the last census; how do we know when to drop people from the rolls?

So please, don’t throw stats around, it is uncharitable and often misleading.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Pronouncements made in a civil context by the world cannot be ignored, but can be resisted.

Pronouncements made inside of your own church by church authorities cannot really be ignored, can they? It seems there would be a true head in the sand aspect to that.

If this makes you uncomfortable, allow me to suggest it should make you uncomfortable. Discomfort should bring reflection, and here, I guess, in terms of attachment, recall Christ’s discussion of father against mother, etc.

There’s a true word if ever there was one.

Just a thought: why does the ACNA exist? Why do Continuing Anglican communities of any kind exist? A splinter church doesn’t make sense in a Roman Catholic context; either you believe what the Church teaches, or you don’t. If a splinter church formed that, say, allowed priestesses, it would contradict itself on papal infallibility (per Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), or else become Anglican or Old Catholic.

But the Anglican Communion is inherently latitudinarian. What does TEC teach you need to believe? It doesn’t believe the Real Presence is an important enough issue. I wonder, is even the existence of God as God necessary (given Bishop Spong)? So, authoritatively, what’s holding you in the Anglican Communion, anyway, if your own bishops can’t even agree on the Real Presence, but can agree almost unanimously about gay marriage?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would guess that ACNA and Continuing Anglican bishops are just trying to do what Anglican bishops won’t: step out and define your faith so it actually has some meaning!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Being a member of an Episcopal parish this news has been a source of concern to me since it first started filtering through. My hope is that it will make a few minor headlines, people will pat themselves on the back for being so progressive, and then we can ignore it again. I’m so attached to my parish church that the specter of having to distance myself from it is…most, most unwelcome.

Potter, I’d like to share with you a story an Episcopal priest shared with me. I can only hope it helps.

When she first arrived at the small mission church she shepherds, a man approached her, needing to know what she thought of having a gay man as a bishop in NH? He was referring to Bishop Robinson of course. She told him she had no problem with it. He disapproved. She then merely asked him 2 questions. Did the man believe in 1 God and did he believe in Christ? When the gentleman said yes of course I do, her reply was, so do I. So she said to him that even though we might disagree on an issue such as homosexuality, there is no reason we can not be part of the same family. And the great ending she then shared with me is that the man has not left the family and in fact hasn’t missed church since!

I absolutely loved that story and way of thinking. I think it speaks to something that makes TEC such a special place. Clearly you think so too about your parish church. And I have to believe if what you want is to stay too, which it seems to be by your post, that you are welcome to stay in your family too and there is room at the table for you there. Blessings and peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

Potter, I’d like to share with you a story an Episcopal priest shared with me. I can only hope it helps.

When she first arrived at the small mission church she shepherds, a man approached her, needing to know what she thought of having a gay man as a bishop in NH? He was referring to Bishop Robinson of course. She told him she had no problem with it. He disapproved. She then merely asked him 2 questions. Did the man believe in 1 God and did he believe in Christ? When the gentleman said yes of course I do, her reply was, so do I. So she said to him that even though we might disagree on an issue such as homosexuality, there is no reason we can not be part of the same family. And the great ending she then shared with me is that the man has not left the family and in fact hasn’t missed church since!

I absolutely loved that story and way of thinking. I think it speaks to something that makes TEC such a special place. Clearly you think so too about your parish church. And I have to believe if what you want is to stay too, which it seems to be by your post, that you are welcome to stay in your family too and there is room at the table for you there. Blessings and peace.

*“You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.” James 2:19 The demons also testified: * “…a man with the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out in a loud voice, ‘Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are - the Holy One of God!’” Luke 4:33-34 That is not to say that someone who will not accept the teachings of the Church is possessed by a demon–far from it! It is to say that it is not in the plain meaning of the New Testament that accepting that there is one God and that Jesus is the Christ is sufficient agreement for someone to be included among the believers.

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” Matt. 18:17

Our Lord did not say, “Oh, well, if he says he believes in God and believes in me, then there is no reason we cannot be part of the same family.” It is in the plain meaning of the New Testament that the teachings of the Apostles are not up for debate or alteration. Someone who refuses to accept them ought to be treated with love–even those who are frankly our enemies ought to be treated with love–but that does not mean someone who refuses to live according to the teachings of the Apostles ought to be considered a faithful believer. They are not to be considered in communion.

It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans - a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 1 Cor. 5:1-5

I do not think there is any question how St. Paul would have handled the issue of Christians attempting same-sex marriage. There is no question whatsoever!

 

[TarkanAttila]

Potter, I’d like to share with you a story an Episcopal priest shared with me. I can only hope it helps.

When she first arrived at the small mission church she shepherds, a man approached her, needing to know what she thought of having a gay man as a bishop in NH? He was referring to Bishop Robinson of course. She told him she had no problem with it. He disapproved. She then merely asked him 2 questions. Did the man believe in 1 God and did he believe in Christ? When the gentleman said yes of course I do, her reply was, so do I. So she said to him that even though we might disagree on an issue such as homosexuality, there is no reason we can not be part of the same family. And the great ending she then shared with me is that the man has not left the family and in fact hasn’t missed church since!

I absolutely loved that story and way of thinking. I think it speaks to something that makes TEC such a special place. Clearly you think so too about your parish church. And I have to believe if what you want is to stay too, which it seems to be by your post, that you are welcome to stay in your family too and there is room at the table for you there. Blessings and peace.

Jesus was a Jew, wasn’t He? How did he speak to the Pharisees and the Sadducees? How did Our Lord, whom you claim to believe in, speak of them?

Not well. He was, to put it mildly, not content with simply believing in one God. He wanted them to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. And He told them what they were: whitewashed tombs, comely on the outside, but full of dead men’s bones.

We do not hate TEC, or you, Sy. But surely you understand why we could never do the sort of thing which you praise…

 

[Sy_Noe]

The CC has its answers so for faithful Catholics there is no question whatsoever. How some mainline-progressive Christians understand the Bible including homosexuality and marriage is not hard to find with a simple search. Someone can bring up demons and then say it doesn’t mean that someone is. I know I am a believer regardless of whether someone says I am or how they treat me. I don’t fear an open box. I thrive in it. It allows me to breath. I don’t hold to the view that human understanding can not evolve, though as limited as it will always be for the finite human to fully understand the infinite God. By faith not by sight we walk until in faith Christ comes again. The Bible speaks of many things. St Paul spoke of many things. I allow for customs of the times in which lived the inspired human writers. I might not take literally some things that others might. There once was no vacancy at an inn. But Jesus did say he would turn no one away who is called. And on that I simply can not judge who is or is not called to the table and if there is room. Peace and blessings to all on our walks.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The CC has its answers so for faithful Catholics there is no question whatsoever. How some mainline-progressive Christians understand the Bible including homosexuality and marriage is not hard to find with a simple search.

TEC, and the Anglican Communion, is different. It is not necessarily Mainline. It’s a jumble of things - “broad church” progressives, as you call them (just as Bishop John Shelby Spong), as well as “low church” evangelical Protestants (such as the Holy Trinity, Brompton parish), and “high church” almost Traditionalist Catholics (such as my pastor, formerly a priest in TEC). And, of course, mixes and matches of everything. (Of which former primate Rowan Williams would be an example of a High-Low blend, and Bishop N.T. Wright a Low-Broad blend.)

A good example is respective factions’ understanding of the Eucharist. The “High” Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, whereas “low” Anglicans believe in a spiritual presence, or perhaps a symbolic presence, but not a “real” presence in the sense of Anglo-Catholics.

And, as you can see here, there are some Anglicans who would rather that gay marriage did not exist in their church, and as you have seen, some that are elated by the fact. And that’s OK in Anglicanism because the bishops don’t provide any guidelines. You can pick and choose what you want to believe in the Anglican Communion. That is how High, Low, and Broad Churchmen coexist in one “communion” - because they are not a communion, but a confederation.

I wonder what your priestess would say in regards to Bishop Spong’s non-theistic concept of God. I wonder what he would say of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. Either way, they somehow coexist in this tossed salad of mixed contradictions.

I don’t hold to the view that human understanding can not evolve, though as limited as it will always be for the finite human to fully understand the infinite God.

I agree our understanding of God can evolve. But it cannot contradict itself. It seems to me that in practise, if not officially, TEC and the Anglican Communion have contradicted themselves many times. There are few if any Anglo-Catholic priestesses or bishopesses - which are abundant in other sectors of the C of E. You receive something different at an Anglo-Catholic parish (in principle) than you do from an Evangelical Anglican parish when they give you communion. Any two different priests may have been taught two very different conceptions of what their priesthood entails.

What am I supposed to make of such contradictions and others, but that the Anglican Communion either doesn’t really teach anything, or that it contradicts itself in what it considers to be factual?

I might not take literally some things that others might.

And what are all of you required to take as true, so that if even one of your bishops disagrees, you can truly and authoritatively say, that he is an heretic? What good is it to say you all “believe in one God”, yet that phrase can be defined to the point
where even an atheist could meet that definition?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Or, simply: You may want TEC, the Anglican Communion. I think that is why most people become Anglicans, because they want something it has to offer. But I don’t think it has the power to compel anyone to it. That is, I don’t think anyone would die to remain an Anglican, if he had other, similar, death-free choices. It is too relativistic to be worth dying for.

A vague but certain and rational deism, like that of Socrates, is simpler, easier to prove, and more conclusive and solid than the Anglican Communion’s latitude and uncertainty.

 

[Sy_Noe]

TEC, and the Anglican Communion, is different. It is not necessarily Mainline. It’s a jumble of things - “broad church” progressives, as you call them (just as Bishop John Shelby Spong), as well as “low church” evangelical Protestants (such as the Holy Trinity, Brompton parish), and “high church” almost Traditionalist Catholics (such as my pastor, formerly a priest in TEC). And, of course, mixes and matches of everything. (Of which former primate Rowan Williams would be an example of a High-Low blend, and Bishop N.T. Wright a Low-Broad blend.)

A good example is respective factions’ understanding of the Eucharist. The “High” Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, whereas “low” Anglicans believe in a spiritual presence, or perhaps a symbolic presence, but not a “real” presence in the sense of Anglo-Catholics.

And, as you can see here, there are some Anglicans who would rather that gay marriage did not exist in their church, and as you have seen, some that are elated by the fact. And that’s OK in Anglicanism because the bishops don’t provide any guidelines. You can pick and choose what you want to believe in the Anglican Communion. That is how High, Low, and Broad Churchmen coexist in one “communion” - because they are not a communion, but a confederation.

I wonder what your priestess would say in regards to Bishop Spong’s non-theistic concept of God. I wonder what he would say of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. Either way, they somehow coexist in this tossed salad of mixed contradictions.

I agree our understanding of God can evolve. But it cannot contradict itself. It seems to me that in practise, if not officially, TEC and the Anglican Communion have contradicted themselves many times. There are few if any Anglo-Catholic priestesses or bishopesses - which are abundant in other sectors of the C of E. You receive something different at an Anglo-Catholic parish (in principle) than you do from an Evangelical Anglican parish when they give you communion. Any two different priests may have been taught two very different conceptions of what their priesthood entails.

What am I supposed to make of such contradictions and others, but that the Anglican Communion either doesn’t really teach anything, or that it contradicts itself in what it considers to be factual?

And what are all of you required to take as true, so that if even one of your bishops disagrees, you can truly and authoritatively say, that he is an heretic? What good is it to say you all “believe in one God”, yet that phrase can be defined to the point
where even an atheist could meet that definition?

Although I’m not Episcopalian and have never yet even attended a service at one of their churches, nor yet at another mainline-progressive one, how you describe them sure does sound very much like a real life family to me.

 

[chimo]

The apostolic Churches may have separated long before the Protestants broke off, but they remain closest to each other in terms of doctrine. And though some of the Orthodox Churches resubmitted themselves to Rome (hence the plethora of Eastern Catholic Churches), there has been a long history of hurt and distrust over the centuries. Reunification may happen one day, but it’ll be slow. Thankfully, though, the Catholic Church considers the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to be “sister churches”, and, though we wish to be reunified one day, instead of trying to force reunification on our terms (as the policy used to be), we’ve decided to just keep the communication lines open and let the Holy Spirit work.

Unlike the Protestant Reformation, which was like rebellious children refusing to listen to their parents, the Great Schism was more like an ugly divorce in which the parents - even though they agreed on just about everything - got proud and refused to listen to the concerns of the other parent. Today, they’re working on a long and arduous reconciliation, but it will remain long and arduous. On the other hand, as I said a few sentences ago, the Protestant Reformation was more like rebellious children refusing to listen to their parents, in essence saying, “We’ll do it our own way! We don’t care what you have to say, we know what we’re doing!” And, as such, they ran away from home. But like the Prodigal Children that they are, the hope is that one day they will come back home, asking for forgiveness from their forgiving father, who is all too willing to let them come back.

The question though that could be asked was the Great Schism actually a schism. In reality only the top brass were at odds with each other. Perhaps if we looked at this from another angle we will see that this schism was not entirely a schism but more of a misunderstanding. I honestly believe the two great Churches were only showing their immaturity at that time. This immaturity if you can point it out has now ventured into a more stabled maturity in our present times. Perhaps this was what God was waiting for. He was waiting for the Churches to be mature.Just like adults who needed to struggle to enter into their maturity so did the Churches had to go through the same struggle. It is to my observations that there was no real visible unity within our Churches. There was Apostolic recognition but basically the Churches were on their own. A person growing up in the East would not have recognition towards a Catholic Mass just as someone growing up in the West would not know the Divine Liturgy. These sacraments would not be able to be understood by the Laity until the present times. Our knowledge of each other is increasing more and more and this is the gift which the Lord was waiting for. Since we did not know each other from the past it follows through we did not separate from each other because how can we separate from each other when we did not know each other (I am referring here to the Laity). A schism may have occurred between Bishops (for that is what it was) but that did not stop God from trying to get His Church into a maturity that would best serve it. I sense this parting of the ways (between Bishops) was necessary until the Church will find its maturity. The problem with unity as you stated was it needed to be set on a specific terms which each Church had stated. That was like telling your wife you better do what I tell you. Perhaps if we just the other Church to be without changing it and work from this perspective this maturity would better serve us and our unity will come. It is an interesting analogy you had given for the Protestants and it seems some of these Protestants are returning back to the fullness of the Catholic Church when certain Churches such as the Episcopal Church are changing the very Christian doctrine that had shaped them.

 

[EasterJoy]

The CC has its answers so for faithful Catholics there is no question whatsoever. How some mainline-progressive Christians understand the Bible including homosexuality and marriage is not hard to find with a simple search. Someone can bring up demons and then say it doesn’t mean that someone is. I know I am a believer regardless of whether someone says I am or how they treat me. I don’t fear an open box. I thrive in it. It allows me to breath. I don’t hold to the view that human understanding can not evolve, though as limited as it will always be for the finite human to fully understand the infinite God. By faith not by sight we walk until in faith Christ comes again. The Bible speaks of many things. St Paul spoke of many things. I allow for customs of the times in which lived the inspired human writers. I might not take literally some things that others might. There once was no vacancy at an inn. But Jesus did say he would turn no one away who is called. And on that I simply can not judge who is or is not called to the table and if there is room. Peace and blessings to all on our walks.

When did Jesus say he would not turn away anyone who is called?

Don’t you remember this parable?

*Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’ Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.

The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’

Many are invited, but few are chosen."*

(Matt.22:1-14)

Was Judas not called? Did Our Lord not say of him "The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.” (Matt. 26:22)?

 

[Sy_Noe]

When did Jesus say he would not turn away anyone who is called?

This good news is found in the Jn 6 chapter that Catholics love to quote regarding their interpretation of the Eucharist.

Jn 6:37 “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me”.

But I’m sure you were already familiar with this and I know the CC has it’s own interpretation. That’s the thing about quoting Scripture. Faiths have various understandings.

 

[EasterJoy]

This good news is found in the Jn 6 chapter that Catholics love to quote regarding their interpretation of the Eucharist.

Jn 6:37 “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me”.

But I’m sure you were already familiar with this and I know the CC has it’s own interpretation. That’s the thing about quoting Scripture. Faiths have various understandings.

I am not talking about judging whether this one or that one will enjoy the mercy of God! We are talking about what is and what is not ethical.

St. Paul talked very clearly about this, too–that is, that we are not to go ahead and do whatever we like because we know that no sin is greater than the mercy of God.

*****What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.

I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature. For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.*
(Rom. 6:15-23)

It is curious that the “understanding” of so many denominations have conformed to what the world, the flesh, and the devil have been tempting towards all along. Does that not raise any red flags at all? It ought to! Can the Apostles have been so totally misguided about what things the Gentiles ought to have left behind when they accepted Christ? How would that be? Where there is a real change, let’s talk, but where there is a regression to a state the ancients were clearly warned to avoid, that is something else again.

No, I do not think I’m saying anything that you have never heard. I am only saying that there are good and rational reasons to be wary of “progress” when it leads right back to a pit that we’ve been so clearly warned to stay out of from the very beginning.

 

[GKC]

I’ve often wondered about that evolution. I think you are correct, but I don’t know how they’ve explained it. It’s worth noting that Edward VIII had a difficult time finding a priest of the Church of England who would perform the wedding to Wallis Simpson for that reason. If I recall correctly, they had to find one that was located in France. The often simplified concept that the Church of England sanctioned divorce due to Henry VIII is completely wrong.

C.S. Lewis had that problem while formulating how he could marry Joy Davidman, in 1957.

 

[GKC]

There’s a true word if ever there was one.

Just a thought: why does the ACNA exist? Why do Continuing Anglican communities of any kind exist? A splinter church doesn’t make sense in a Roman Catholic context; either you believe what the Church teaches, or you don’t. If a splinter church formed that, say, allowed priestesses, it would contradict itself on papal infallibility (per Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), or else become Anglican or Old Catholic.

But the Anglican Communion is inherently latitudinarian. What does TEC teach you need to believe? It doesn’t believe the Real Presence is an important enough issue. I wonder, is even the existence of God as God necessary (given Bishop Spong)? So, authoritatively, what’s holding you in the Anglican Communion, anyway, if your own bishops can’t even agree on the Real Presence, but can agree almost unanimously about gay marriage?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would guess that ACNA and Continuing Anglican bishops are just trying to do what Anglican bishops won’t: step out and define your faith so it actually has some meaning!

Make that “Come out from among them …” and define/practice your faith, and it’s a little more accurate.

GKC
posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[ericc]

Jn 6:37 “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me”.

But I’m sure you were already familiar with this and I know the CC has it’s own interpretation. That’s the thing about quoting Scripture. Faiths have various understandings.

Yes, Jesus accepts all sinners of whatever categories. But he has never called sin a non-sin. He has never declare something that is bad as good regardless of the times. He transcends all time. Homosexuality acts from OT to NT have always being branded as an abomination to the Lord. And that has been that way for thousands of years despite human developments. Time does not change that fact. But if someone were to twist God’s word, that something that is an abomination to Him into something that is acceptable to God, will be a very serious offense against Him. Lying to God is somewhat different from lying to another human being. The consequences could be very drastic as the example of Ananias and his wife shows. Teaching an untruth as a truth is worse than being a sinner because it causes another to sin. All of us are sinners. And we try very hard not to sin. Even when we sin, we still discouraged others from committing the sins we are committing. Called us hypocrites and you will be right. But camouflaging sin and supporting it really has no place in a Christian. Search your heart and you know that is true, no matter which century. Jesus teaching has always taught us to love the sinner and to sin no more. He never taught us to love the sin and teach others to sin.

Your compassion for homosexuals is admirable and Christianlike. But do yourself a favor for the sake of your soul, do not promote sinful behavior. We can all be in Christ family no matter the denominations, but promoters of sin will never, never, find a home in Christ. Unless he repents.

Human understanding will always evolved. But sin is declared by God, defined by God what it is. A million years of human development can not change a single iota of God’s definition of homosexual sin Lev 18:22 nor of any other sexual sins described in Lev 18. That is why sex with parents, siblings, grand kids, relatives of various sorts are all prohibited as well as animal sex and others, no matter how great these people are or how happy they are in the relationship. This is basic Christianity 101. How open do you want to be to change these teachings?

If you accept homosexual sex, would you accept sex with family members since all are equally prohibited? I guess not. You can not use special pleading. And if you open the door for this sin, other doors for other sins can also be opened due to “newer understandings” as well. You might as well remove the 10 commandments too. All one need is just popular vote to vote God out. And start a new commandment: “God” wants me to be happy and do whatever it takes to keep me happy.

 

[commenter]

The CC has its answers so for faithful Catholics there is no question whatsoever. … I don’t fear an open box. I thrive in it…

You are hinting that “faithful” Catholics are fearful of challenges, they like the safety of the CC which has “its” answers. (Read “Orthodoxy”, by G. K. Chesterton; the most prophetic book of the last century).

You may not know them, but there are many intelligent Catholics who are “faithful”; not in your sense, i. e. “timid”, but open minded to the Magisterium as a channel of communicating God’s answers. They seek to engage the secular culture even when it is increasingly anti-Catholic, and try to live out the Christian Faith. They have lots of questions on how to live out the Faith.

I do know many persons, both Catholics and others, who closed-minded to the Magisterium. They may refer to their position as an “open box” thinking they are open to all points of view, liberal and conservative, old and new, Catholic, Protestant, and others.
They claim to pick and choose their positions individually, not tied down to any authority. They all deny they follow the media, all claim they use it for data, then draw their own conclusions.

But invariably their views are identical to the Media. They prioritize whatever issues are “trending”. They ignore whatever issues the Media ignores. If you talk to them, or read what they write on the Internet, they are clones of the Media, and clones of each other. There is far more individuality and “challenges” among Orthodox Catholics, EO, and Protestants than there is among the “open box” media clones.

 

[GKC]

You are hinting that “faithful” Catholics are fearful of challenges, they like the safety of the CC which has “its” answers. (Read “Orthodoxy”, by G. K. Chesterton; the most prophetic book of the last century).

A book I often recommend,myself. As I occasionally point out that Chesterton was nominally Anglican when he wrote it, but was roughly at the point when he decided that Rome was his destination. Which for a couple of reasons, took him roughly 14 years to reach.

 

[ericc]

Does this church do weddings for homosexual (blood) brothers? Anything to prevent them from doing it? Or incestuous marriages? There is nothing really to stop it from “progressing”.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Does this church do weddings for homosexual (blood) brothers? Anything to prevent them from doing it? Or incestuous marriages? There is nothing really to stop it from “progressing”.

I would imagine legal wedding certificates would qualify who an Episcopal priest or deacon would sacramentally marry.