Episcopal Church: What happened?

[ByzCathCantor]

The picture is being painted here that somehow most Episcopalians are not “liberal,” and that they do not agree with what is going on in the Episcopalian church. I find that beyond incredible.

Well, that may be true, but we haven’t heard as yet from any liberal lay members of the church. All opinions voiced so far come from decidedly conservative leaning people.

It’s not like Katherine Jefferts-Schori just popped into her office from outer space. She was elected.

Elected by whom? The laity?

I did not include the final segment of this post, as I thought it is our custom here on CAF not to toss around the “S” word, but it seems that is what you are arguing. The church and all its faithful put her in charge. This is inappropriate, and they are all guilty.

 

[iloveangels]

IMO, Catholics have a difficult time getting their minds around the idea that members of other faith communities CAN disagree with their leadership. Bishop Katherine seeks to lead the US Episcopal community in faithfulness to their understanding of the gospel. They are on a journey together in their search for Truth.

I have attented worship/eucharist services at the Episcopal church with friends and there IS a lot of discussion outside of the eucharist on what is “right”…but for the most part the extreemly “conservative” members and the very “liberal” members join with one another around the alter to share in the sacrament of unity…“It is Christ who asks you to the Sacred Meal…it is Christ who welcomes you to His Table…let us join together in Him and share the Sacred Meal.”

If you are allowed to “disagree” with your leadership to the extent that you lawyer up and fight over property, refuse to obey them, withdraw yourself from union and join up with the African church, etc etc, then what is the use of even calling them your “leadership” and why do they bother you at all then? Admit in that case that you are independent congregations like the Congregationalists and get on with life.

But you and I know that this is not really what’s going on. It’s much more systemic and serious than this.

Proof of the pudding? In the occasional case that an Episcopalian church leaves and the vast majority of its local members agree with that decision, why is there still a fight over the real estate? And who do they fight?

 

[Publisher]

If you are allowed to “disagree” with your leadership to the extent that you lawyer up and fight over property, refuse to obey them, withdraw yourself from union and join up with the African church, etc etc, then what is the use of even calling them your “leadership” and why do they bother you at all then? Admit in that case that you are independent congregations like the Congregationalists and get on with life.

But you and I know that this is not really what’s going on. It’s much more systemic and serious than this.

If one “withdraws” from communion one hardly can call them “leadership”. If a Catholic disagrees with their leadership and moves to another “communion” or seeks to place themselves under a different bishop from a different jurisdiction…I don’t think those who leave are calling Bishop Jeffers-Schori their “leadership”.

 

[iloveangels]

If one “withdraws” from communion one hardly can call them “leadership”. If a Catholic disagrees with their leadership and moves to another “communion” or seeks to place themselves under a different bishop from a different jurisdiction…

Publisher. Catholic parishes can’t leave a diocese of their own volition and join another one. Particularly if it’s over some disagreement. That’s not how it works. Ever.

I don’t think those who leave are calling Bishop Jeffers-Schori their “leadership”.

She’s somebody’s leadership and they elected her. Like I said, it’s a schism. Parishes are withdrawing from the “Anglican communion.” What does that make them? Another kind of protestants, I imagine. That’s how all the rest of them came to be.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher. Catholic parishes can’t leave a diocese and join another one. That’s not how it works. Ever.

But they can leave their Catholic bishop and request acceptance with an Orthodox bishop…“that’s not how it works” in Catholicism…but within the Anglican communion, diversity is allowed…and as I understand, the African bishops who accepted those “dissenters” were…strongly addressed by the American church.

 

[iloveangels]

But they can leave their Catholic bishop and request acceptance with an Orthodox bishop…“that’s not how it works” in Catholicism…but within the Anglican communion, diversity is allowed…and as I understand, the African bishops who accepted those “dissenters” were…strongly addressed by the American church.

No. I’ve never heard of that happening. Keep in mind that there is an Greek Orthodox church not in union with Rome. Then there are 22 rites in the Catholic church, including the Roman rite to which most people belong. Parishes in the various rites (Byzantine, Armenian, Lithuanian, Syrian, etc etc) are there as a matter of history, not choice.

And Latin Rite parishes can not transition to being Byzantine, for instance. And if one is born a Latin Rite catholic, they can’t transfer to the Byzantine rite, for instance, unless they marry into a Byzantine rite family. They can attend a Byzantine rite church, but that’s not the same thing at all.

 

[iloveangels]

But they can leave their Catholic bishop and request acceptance with an Orthodox bishop…“that’s not how it works” in Catholicism…but within the Anglican communion, diversity is allowed…and as I understand, the African bishops who accepted those “dissenters” were…strongly addressed by the American church.

NO. That’s apostasy to the Greek Orthodox church. At which time, they leave union with Rome.

 

[iloveangels]

Well, that may be true, but we haven’t heard as yet from any liberal lay members of the church. All opinions voiced so far come from decidedly conservative leaning people.

My point exactly. You’re hearing from one side of a two-sided battle.

Elected by whom? The laity?

I did not include the final segment of this post, as I thought it is our custom here on CAF not to toss around the “S” word, but it seems that is what you are arguing. The church and all its faithful put her in charge. This is inappropriate, and they are all guilty.

Who knows if they are guilty? That’s not the point since maybe a lot of them wanted her in office, and thus, she was elected. But apparently some didn’t want her in office, it turns out… It’s a “violent disagreement leading to the rending of the Episcopalian Church” and that’s why it’s getting so “loud.”

[There I avoided the “S” word, ok? But that’s still what’s going on. It’s not a Catholic “S” word in any case. We’re talking about a protestant church here and they splinter all the time like mad anyway.]

 

[Genovefa]

I am joining this thread late and it is quite long, so please forgive me if I am repeating things already mentioned.

First the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican Communion. I don’t really consider myself Episcopalian as much as Anglican or even more specifically Anglo-Catholic (Catholic church in England).

The only parts of the Anglican Communion that have ordained gay bishop are in Canada and the US. Not all bishops in the US agreed to the ordination of these Bishops, including my own. So the vast majority of Anglicans around the world are not doing this.

The Anglican communion won’t just kick the Episcopalians out of the Communion. This would be a schism. And after what we did back in the 1500s with Henry VIII and Cromwell and all that mess, we take this very seriously. Perhaps it is a guilty conscience. We don’t believe in all sorts of denominations breaking apart for all sorts of reasons anymore than our Roman friends do.

I am frankly dismayed by the groups of Anglicans and Episcopalians that are jumping ship. The church has faced worse in its history. At least most are being accepted into RC. It would be a tragedy if they were splitting off on their own. And bless Pope Benedict that he is graciously receiving them. But imagine if Catholic congregations started breaking off from Rome and joining Anglicans.

And by the way, Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants. I just learned this in my catechist class. We consider ourselves Catholic and to some degree regret the schism of 500 years ago. However, we have an English flavor to our tradition that developed years prior because we were fairly isolated from Rome. We even were carefully to maintain apostolic succession through Augustine of Canterbury.

Most Anglicans would like nothing more than to unite with Rome and the Eastern church. My Bishop has even spoken of this. However, it is unlikely to happen. Our divorced members would be put in the unfortunate position of being excluded from communion–among other issues.

 

[GKC]

Well, that may be true, but we haven’t heard as yet from any liberal lay members of the church. All opinions voiced so far come from decidedly conservative leaning people.

Elected by whom? The laity?

I did not include the final segment of this post, as I thought it is our custom here on CAF not to toss around the “S” word, but it seems that is what you are arguing. The church and all its faithful put her in charge. This is inappropriate, and they are all guilty.

The gracious Katherine was elected PB by the House of Bishops. Confirmed by the House of Deputies (lay and clerical).

The role of the PB has been, one might say, an evolutionary one, particularly in the 5 years of the gracious Katherine’s …mmm…reign. In more ways than merely doctrinal, the Episcopal Church has been morphing into something unusual, by historic Episcopal standards.

Some people, still within the environs of Episcopal dioceses, find the directions TEC has chosen distressing; others have taken off for the hills.Yet others, still resident, having let the waters out, sing alleluias to the river gods as they are swept downstream to a new place. But what The Episcopal Church meant, say 40 years ago, doctrinally, organizationally, structurally, with respect to discipline, with respect to the understanding of historic Christian dogma, with respect to scripture, has morphed like a Transformer.

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[CMatt25]

And by the way, Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants. I just learned this in my catechist class. We consider ourselves Catholic and to some degree regret the schism of 500 years ago. However, we have an English flavor to our tradition that developed years prior because we were fairly isolated from Rome. We even were carefully to maintain apostolic succession through Augustine of Canterbury.

Most Anglicans would like nothing more than to unite with Rome and the Eastern church. My Bishop has even spoken of this. However, it is unlikely to happen. Our divorced members would be put in the unfortunate position of being excluded from communion–among other issues.

Yes in correspondence with Episcopalians I’ve found they tend to differentiate between Catholic and Roman Catholic, considering themselves the former. And was told by a former Roman priest, turned Episcopalian priest, that because Episcopalians hold to a belief of maintaining Apostolic succession, a confirmed Roman Catholic in order to gain full membership, only needs to be received into the Episcopal Church without being confirmed again.

 

[CMatt25]

FWIW - the Episcopal church does seem to be particularly gifted in managing these programs.

I believe being gifted at managing programs for the poor and the homeless is worth a lot.

 

[CMatt25]

So…are the quakers going down the drain next?

Going down a drain? I’m apparently missing the Christian charity in this.

 

[iloveangels]

I am joining this thread late and it is quite long, so please forgive me if I am repeating things already mentioned.

First the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican Communion. I don’t really consider myself Episcopalian as much as Anglican or even more specifically Anglo-Catholic (Catholic church in England).

The only parts of the Anglican Communion that have ordained gay bishop are in Canada and the US. Not all bishops in the US agreed to the ordination of these Bishops, including my own. So the vast majority of Anglicans around the world are not doing this.

The Anglican communion won’t just kick the Episcopalians out of the Communion. This would be a schism. And after what we did back in the 1500s with Henry VIII and Cromwell and all that mess, we take this very seriously. Perhaps it is a guilty conscience. We don’t believe in all sorts of denominations breaking apart for all sorts of reasons anymore than our Roman friends do.

I am frankly dismayed by the groups of Anglicans and Episcopalians that are jumping ship. The church has faced worse in its history. At least most are being accepted into RC. It would be a tragedy if they were splitting off on their own. And bless Pope Benedict that he is graciously receiving them. But imagine if Catholic congregations started breaking off from Rome and joining Anglicans.

And by the way, Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants. I just learned this in my catechist class. We consider ourselves Catholic and to some degree regret the schism of 500 years ago. However, we have an English flavor to our tradition that developed years prior because we were fairly isolated from Rome. We even were carefully to maintain apostolic succession through Augustine of Canterbury.

Most Anglicans would like nothing more than to unite with Rome and the Eastern church. My Bishop has even spoken of this. However, it is unlikely to happen. Our divorced members would be put in the unfortunate position of being excluded from communion–among other issues.

I KNOW that Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants, but they are protestants, nevertheless. The definition of protestant is “not in union with Rome.” Anglicans and Episcopalians are not in union with Rome, so viola, they’re protestants. I have no idea why Anglicans and Episcopalians can’t get that through their skulls. It’s not a mystery to Catholics–or other protestants, BTW. They get it; we get it; only Anglicans & Episcopalians seem not to get it. I have no idea why.

PS. About your divorced members, not necessarily. Only if they’ve remarried and the first marriage was real and still existing.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes in correspondence with Episcopalians I’ve found they tend to differentiate between Catholic and Roman Catholic, considering themselves the former. And was told by a former Roman priest, turned Episcopalian priest, that because Episcopalians hold to a belief of maintaining Apostolic succession, a confirmed Roman Catholic in order to gain full membership, only needs to be received into the Episcopal Church without being confirmed again.

Well, if they hold apostolic succession so highly, then how did they manage to elect Katherine Jefferts-Schori primate of the Episcopalian church? She can’t partake in apostolic succession for very obvious reasons.

 

[liturgyluver]

I KNOW that Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants, but they are protestants, nevertheless. The definition of protestant is “not in union with Rome.” Anglicans and Episcopalians are not in union with Rome, so viola, they’re protestants. I have no idea why Anglicans and Episcopalians can’t get that through their skulls. It’s not a mystery to Catholics–or other protestants, BTW. They get it; we get it; only Anglicans & Episcopalians seem not to get it. I have no idea why.

I don’t think you are right about your definition of Protestant. The Eastern Orthodox church is not in union with Rome and we certainly don’t describe them as Protestant, nor would they describe themselves so.

Putting this aside, I think there might be slightly different definintions of the word Catholic. I can certainly understand why some Anglicans would describe themselves as Catholic, but officially most Anglicans describe themsleves as reformed Catholic. I imagine this would be because at the reformation their church, whilst rejecting papal authority, held onto the central tenets of the catholic faith in terms of their belief in apostolic succession; in terms of liturgy - that was based on a translation of the Sarum Use; and the episcopacy and three-fold order of ministry.

As someone whose father was Anglican, I can clearly see this distinction between Anglicans and other denominations. In terms of liturgy also, I have heard Presbyterians and Baptists describe many Anglican churches as more Catholic than Catholic, and they wouldn’t see them as fellow protestants.

 

[Della]

I am joining this thread late and it is quite long, so please forgive me if I am repeating things already mentioned.

First the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican Communion. I don’t really consider myself Episcopalian as much as Anglican or even more specifically Anglo-Catholic (Catholic church in England).

The only parts of the Anglican Communion that have ordained gay bishop are in Canada and the US. Not all bishops in the US agreed to the ordination of these Bishops, including my own. So the vast majority of Anglicans around the world are not doing this.

The Anglican communion won’t just kick the Episcopalians out of the Communion. This would be a schism. And after what we did back in the 1500s with Henry VIII and Cromwell and all that mess, we take this very seriously. Perhaps it is a guilty conscience. We don’t believe in all sorts of denominations breaking apart for all sorts of reasons anymore than our Roman friends do.

I am frankly dismayed by the groups of Anglicans and Episcopalians that are jumping ship. The church has faced worse in its history. At least most are being accepted into RC. It would be a tragedy if they were splitting off on their own. And bless Pope Benedict that he is graciously receiving them. But imagine if Catholic congregations started breaking off from Rome and joining Anglicans.

And by the way, Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants. I just learned this in my catechist class. We consider ourselves Catholic and to some degree regret the schism of 500 years ago. However, we have an English flavor to our tradition that developed years prior because we were fairly isolated from Rome. We even were carefully to maintain apostolic succession through Augustine of Canterbury.

Most Anglicans would like nothing more than to unite with Rome and the Eastern church. My Bishop has even spoken of this. However, it is unlikely to happen. Our divorced members would be put in the unfortunate position of being excluded from communion–among other issues.

Truly, there is nothing that should keep our Anglican brothers from being reconciled with Holy Mother Church. Your last statement proves that it is misinformation and fear that is preventing it, not the truth. For instance, divorced persons are not automatically excluded from receiving communion. Only those who remarry without seeking an anullment/regularizing their marriages would be excluded and only because they themselves have put themselves outside God’s grace–the Church does nothing to anyone, we do these things to ourselves, usually out of human weakness but sometimes in defiance. The Church cannot break God’s commandments in order to make people “feel” accepted. It’s not fair to them to deceive them nor is it charitable to let them think they can get a free pass without having to do what God has commanded.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t think you are right about your definition of Protestant. The Eastern Orthodox church is not in union with Rome and we certainly don’t describe them as Protestant, nor would they describe themselves so.

Putting this aside, I think there might be slightly different definintions of the word Catholic. I can certainly understand why some Anglicans would describe themselves as Catholic, but officially most Anglicans describe themsleves as reformed Catholic. I imagine this would be because at the reformation their church, whilst rejecting papal authority, held onto the central tenets of the catholic faith in terms of their belief in apostolic succession; in terms of liturgy - that was based on a translation of the Sarum Use; and the episcopacy and three-fold order of ministry.

As someone whose father was Anglican, I can clearly see this distinction between Anglicans and other denominations. In terms of liturgy also, I have heard Presbyterians and Baptists describe many Anglican churches as more Catholic than Catholic, and they wouldn’t see them as fellow protestants.

I was about to suggest the poster you replied to might have been using the Catholic definition of Protestant but not that of the Anglicans. But your point about the Orthodox seems a good one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I KNOW that Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t consider themselves protestants, but they are protestants, nevertheless. The definition of protestant is “not in union with Rome.” Anglicans and Episcopalians are not in union with Rome, so viola, they’re protestants. I have no idea why Anglicans and Episcopalians can’t get that through their skulls. It’s not a mystery to Catholics–or other protestants, BTW. They get it; we get it; only Anglicans & Episcopalians seem not to get it. I have no idea why.

PS. About your divorced members, not necessarily. Only if they’ve remarried and the first marriage was real and still existing.

iloveangels,

As already stated, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome and they are not Protestants.

As for what “other Protestants” think: the very same Protestants who condemn Catholicism, also condemn Anglicanism, because Anglicans are one of the three Catholic faiths: Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Catholics complain (and rightfully so) that people misrepresent their beliefs and then condemn them based on misconceptions.

You are doing the same to Anglicans.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes in correspondence with Episcopalians I’ve found they tend to differentiate between Catholic and Roman Catholic, considering themselves the former. And was told by a former Roman priest, turned Episcopalian priest, that because Episcopalians hold to a belief of maintaining Apostolic succession, a confirmed Roman Catholic in order to gain full membership, only needs to be received into the Episcopal Church without being confirmed again.

CMatt25,
You are correct. Catholics in Communion with Rome and Eastern Orthodox are “Received” into the Episcopal Church. A young Catholic couple from France were Received the day I was Confirmed. They love our Anglo Catholic Parish.

Peace,
Anna