Episcopal Church: What happened?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1voice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I was in the TEC I styled myself an “Anglo-Catholic”, and I meant it at the time. It’s like being a stepmom and wanting to think oneself the birth mom. But, no amount of wanting to be something without actually being it will suffice.

Catholic means universal. Catholics belong to the universal Church headed by the pope, founded by Christ in 33 AD. The Orthodox do not call themselves Catholics because they do not acknowledge the pope as the supreme bishop and although they believe most of what Catholics believe, they are not Catholics. They are in schism from the Catholic Church since the 11th century, but not are not “protest-ants” of the Reformation type.

We have to call things what the are or we are not being helpful. When I was reconciled to the Catholic Church I was then free to rightly call myself Catholic–I wasn’t before that. I don’t write this to be “mean” to anyone, but only because it’s true. A good doctor doesn’t tell a patient that he’s fine if he has a medical need–how would that be helpful to him? Indeed, keeping the truth from him could be fatal. What things actually are is important, as is calling things what they actually are–whether we want to think so or not.
 
Della said:
When I was in the TEC I styled myself an “Anglo-Catholic”, and I meant it at the time. It’s like being a stepmom and wanting to think oneself the birth mom. But, no amount of wanting to be something without actually being it will suffice.

Catholic means universal. Catholics belong to the universal Church headed by the pope, founded by Christ in 33 AD. The Orthodox do not call themselves Catholics because they do not acknowledge the pope as the supreme bishop and although they believe most of what Catholics believe, they are not Catholics. They are in schism from the Catholic Church since the 11th century, but not are not “protest-ants” of the Reformation type.

We have to call things what the are or we are not being helpful. When I was reconciled to the Catholic Church I was then free to rightly call myself Catholic–I wasn’t before that. I don’t write this to be “mean” to anyone, but only because it’s true. A good doctor doesn’t tell a patient that he’s fine if he has a medical need–how would that be helpful to him? Indeed, keeping the truth from him could be fatal. What things actually are is important, as is calling things what they actually are–whether we want to think so or not.
Click to expand...
This is correct. It’s not “mean” to tell the truth or bring clarity to areas where little exists. I don’t wish any harm to anyone. least of all Episcopalians who tend to be English genetically, as I am. On the contrary, we welcome you, your families and the beautiful liturgical norms that you have cultivated. But it’s necessary to be honest about the whole picture. It is what it is. This recognition is necessary for real conversion and unity to occur, when it does.
 
iloveangels said:
The key belief that Anglicans don’t share is the primacy of the successor of Peter, who is the Pope. This is NOT an optional belief. This is exactly my point. You can’t be Catholic if you don’t assent to this and put yourself under the authority of this.

Arians called themselves Catholic too. They insisted that they were more Catholic than the Council Fathers at Nicea. That was their claim, while in the Church, and even after they left it. They were wrong. And they were on the wrong side of history. They’re gone now.

This modern claim of some protestants to be more Catholic than Catholics is no different, and it’s just as erroneous.

I mean no one harm, but it’s important to be honest about these things, even if it’s not what some people are used to. Honesty and clarity matters. And this is what’s at the root of the Episcopalian troubles.
Click to expand...
You do me no harm, I assure you. And the objection is not to the primacy of the successor of Peter that most Anglicans mention (though heaven knows Anglicans are a motley crew; can;t generalize about them, generally), but to the supremacy of the the office, the personal charism of infallibility, as defined, and the universal ordinary authority. Primacy is what such Anglicans as I’m assert for the office. Patriarch of the West, primus inter pares.

GKC
 
iloveangels said:
It’s not “mean” to tell the truth or bring clarity to areas where little exists.
Click to expand...
But there are effective ways to express the Truth, short of shouting out loud that all others are wrong, as they do not adhere to everything you hold. It also helps to faithfully understand and portray facts. The greatest endeavors of human reconciliation start with mutual respect of differences and honest acknowledgement of similarities. As Christians, there is certainly more that binds us than sets us apart.

All of our beliefs start with a fundamental rooting in Natural Law, cognizant of the rightful dignity of all individuals, as we are all created in God’s image. So, a little charity goes a long way …
 
Swiss_Guy said:
This thread has wondered…
Click to expand...
… and wandered, too!

I do feel bad for Anna, who jumped into the discussion early on from the Anglican side.

She’s probably gotten more flack than her outreach and honesty deserved.

I hope she comes back - she is a great Christian witness!
 
ByzCathCantor said:
But there are effective ways to express the Truth, short of shouting out loud that all others are wrong, as they do not adhere to everything you hold. It also helps to faithfully understand and portray facts. The greatest endeavors of human reconciliation start with mutual respect of differences and honest acknowledgement of similarities. As Christians, there is certainly more that binds us than sets us apart.

All of our beliefs start with a fundamental rooting in Natural Law, cognizant of the rightful dignity of all individuals, as we are all created in God’s image. So, a little charity goes a long way …
Click to expand...
Natural law is the inviolable context in which things happen, but revelation is the substance and foundation of Christianity. To deny revelation is to cease being a Christian.

Christianity, by its very nature, makes truth claims about God and man. This is one of the chief differences that set us apart from other natural religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism…and Secularism. And this is the beginning of a real understanding of Christianity. Where this is missing, you only get the cultural appearance of Christianity without the core. People may put their hearts, bodies and souls into that, and some do, only to find themselves at dead ends and puzzles when things get difficult.

Christianity is not a hobby; it’s not a disposition; it’s not a nice idea or a set of therapeutic practices or a self-label. It’s a way of life and an lived-out understanding of how all creation works and has always worked. And in its fullness, it’s only found in union with Peter and his successors, as it has been from the beginning.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
… and wandered, too!

I do feel bad for Anna, who jumped into the discussion early on from the Anglican side.

She’s probably gotten more flack than her outreach and honesty deserved.

I hope she comes back - she is a great Christian witness!
Click to expand...
I meant wandered. Typo. Just realized that…:o
 
Everybody keeps quoting everybody else, thus reading this entire thread has become somewhat tedious.

Here are some of my observations:

The world ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’. All Christian denominations who subscribe to the Nicene Creed are members of "one Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, though various schismatic movements have divided the Church Universal.

Anglicanism, historically, has called its path ‘via media’ or the ‘middle way’ between the Catholic and Protestant churches, and contains elements of both. So called ‘low church parties’ have historically followed Evangelical Protestant churches more closely, and ‘high church parties’ have followed Catholic tradition. In the 1890’s, (or earlier in England) The Oxford Movement arose, representing Anglicans who argued for a return to Catholic practices. John Henry Cardinal Newman, originally a low churchman, was part of the Oxford Movement before converting to Roman Catholicism. Today’s Anglo-Catholics are descendants of the Oxford Movement.

What is happening in TEC pains me greatly. I probably would have eventually become a Catholic, anyway, because Cardinal Newman’s essays influenced me greatly upon re-reading them several years ago, but I certainly have high regard for the Anglican Communion and its wonderful liturgy, and other contributions to Christianity.

TEC General Conventions, while in theory democratic, are often ‘rigged’ affairs, because the individual diocesan process of delegate selection is stacked in favor of the more liberal elements. Even ‘moderates’ are marginalized in the process.

I never considered myself especially conservative. I was troubled by our position on abortion, and by same-sex marriage, but the weren’t ‘deal-breakers’ for me until they became the centre of every debate we were having.

Still, I left TEC because, like Cardinal Newman, I decided that via media was insupportable–a discussion best left for another thread.
 
Really? I don’t think it’s wandered.

The title of the thread is “Episcopal Church: What happened?”

We’re talking about what happened which is intimately connected with what the Episcopal church is, what it believes and what it stands for (or doesn’t stand for). I think that’s exactly what we’re talking about.

If we want to get more detailed about it, I’d suggest we talk about specifically about events and documents that have precipitated this situation that the Episcopalians are going through. Only that would be more pertinent to “What happened,” I think, since it would be materially in detail, what happened.

You say that your general conventions have been rigged. That’s interesting. Who rigged them, and why? When did this start, and how long has this been going on? And why did you put up with it?
 
Somebody earlier in this thread, in jest, pointed out that maybe the clergy is liberal while the rank-and-file are conservative. I have no idea how this could happen, nor how you could tell such a thing. Is there any way you can justify that such a thing has actually happened? Frankly, it was a jest and that’s the context it was in. I don’t see how such a thing could be so, under the circumstances you have, and apparently the person who made the jest felt the same in order to make the jest. Want to comment?
 
iloveangels said:
Telling the truth is behaving like a schoolyard bully? Pointing out the essential details that are being glossed over is behaving badly? I disagree. There are many essential things here that are being glossed over.

All I’m doing is telling the whole truth. It’s important. As the Episcopalians no doubt are finding out from their troubles as their mess goes through its inevitable stages…if they have the courage and honesty to confront it.
Click to expand...
iloveangels,
It’s the way you tell what you believe to be the truth, which shows a serious lack of respect.

Anna
 
ByzCathCantor said:
… and wandered, too!

I do feel bad for Anna, who jumped into the discussion early on from the Anglican side.

She’s probably gotten more flack than her outreach and honesty deserved.

I hope she comes back - she is a great Christian witness!
Click to expand...
ByzCathCantor,

You are very kind, but no need to feel bad for me. I’m tougher than you might think. 😃

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
iloveangels,
It’s the way you tell what you believe to be the truth, which shows a serious lack of respect.

Anna
Click to expand...
That’s exactly my point, Anna. It’s not just “what I believe to be the truth.” There it is again, did you hear it?

Christianity makes truth claims and they are real and explicit. Telling the truth is one of Christianity’s essential features.
 
RyanBlack said:
Not true.
Click to expand...
You have to go through an official process. It’s not something you can do by yourself and it’s discouraged. The prescriptions are laid out in canon law. Here is a pretty good rundown of them: ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/EASTROME.HTM

You can simply attend another rite’s parish (ie Byzantine etc) but that’s not the same thing as changing the rite you belong to.

Changing rites is not at all common because it’s restricted. You’re born into it or married into it or you get the permission of the Holy See to do it, basically.

I see that your identification says “Eastern Catholic.” Does that mean you are Orthodox or are you in one of the 21 smaller rites in union with Rome? Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc etc?

Just curious.
 
I did not wade through all 150+ posts on this before responding to please forgive me if I am chiming in while the rest have moved on.

With that in mind, my take on the situation of the Episcopal Church is relatively simplistic but I still feel it is a valid point of view.

Once you back down on one basic tenant of your faith and change your teaching, the rest fall much easier. It really only takes one. Obviously as people, we are all fallen and sinners and do this all the time. However, as institutions, Churches, be they Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. cannot do this. Once it is permissible to ignore one thing that has always been taught, how can you hold anyone accountable for changing their teaching on something else?

Its a bit of a domino effect really. Its very sad to see also.
 
This is truly sad, my sympathy goes out for fellow Christians who are within the Episcopalian communion. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top