Episcopal Church: What happened?

[Anna_Scott]

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. . . . .

iloveangels,

The fact that the thread has wandered a bit is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. It would be up to the 1voice , our OP to object.

In fact, there are many important issues that spring from our thread question regarding what happened to the Episcopal Church.

So, iloveangels, I will ask you a very direct question. It is a question that you should be able to answer with ease, since you are convinced that Anglo Catholics are really Protestants.

If I’m not able to embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff; and I abandon TEC and the Anglican Communion altogether; where else within Christendom do I go to find the following:

The Nicene Creed including the filioque

The belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church----Catholic (universal, in all times and all places); Apostolic (participating in the Apostles’ teachings (the Scriptures) and fellowship, the breaking of bread (Holy Eucharist) and the prayers (Acts 2:42)

Seven sacraments through which God imparts Graces: Baptism (through which sins are forgiven and we are reborn; including infant Baptism), Holy Eucharist (the Real Presence-transubstantiation), Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Holy Unction

The Blessed Virgin Mary as theotokos and mother of God

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Communion of the Saints

The Divine Inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books

The important role of Tradition

Peace,
Anna

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels,

The fact that the thread has wandered a bit is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. It would be up to the 1voice , our OP to object.

In fact, there are many important issues that spring from our thread question regarding what happened to the Episcopal Church.

So, iloveangels, I will ask you a very direct question. It is a question that you should be able to answer with ease, since you are convinced that Anglo Catholics are really Protestants.

If I’m not able to embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff; and I abandon TEC and the Anglican Communion altogether; where else within Christendom do I go to find the following:

The Nicene Creed including the filioque

The belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church----Catholic (universal, in all times and all places); Apostolic (participating in the Apostles’ teachings (the Scriptures) and fellowship, the breaking of bread (Holy Eucharist) and the prayers (Acts 2:42)

Seven sacraments through which God imparts Graces: Baptism (through which sins are forgiven and we are reborn; including infant Baptism), Holy Eucharist (the Real Presence-transubstantiation), Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Holy Unction

The Blessed Virgin Mary as theotokos and mother of God

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Communion of the Saints

The Divine Inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books

The important role of Tradition

Peace,
Anna

I have no idea, Anna. It seems you would be creating yet another sect.

It would not be Catholic no matter what pieces and parts it might have, if, as you say, you were not able to "embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff.” This assent to the authority of the Pope in Rome is a key requirement of being Catholic. One cannot be Catholic without it; it’s one of the essential elements of Catholicism.

It says in scripture, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” We take that literally; we always have.

 

[iloveangels]

We have something called the Analogy of Faith in Catholic theology. Here’s an explanation from the Catechism that describes it better than I can by myself:

“114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.”

The Catholic faith isn’t just a collection of pieces and parts. It’s a coherent whole and each of its parts contributes to the whole. You can’t just lop off parts and expect it to work correctly. Nor can you present a collection of pieces and parts and expect to find the whole thing for your use. To get the whole thing, you need all the parts and in the proper organic relation one to another. The authority of the Pope is one of the essential parts.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have no idea, Anna. It seems you would be creating yet another sect.

It would not be Catholic no matter what pieces and parts it might have, if, as you say, you were not able to "embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff.” This assent to the authority of the Pope in Rome is a key requirement of being Catholic. One cannot be Catholic without it; it’s one of the essential elements of Catholicism.

It says in scripture, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” We take that literally; we always have.

iloveangels,

You are avoiding the question.

I have no intention of starting a sect. Since you insist that I am Protestant, just name one Protestant Church where I could continue these Traditional beliefs.

Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

iloveangels,

The fact that the thread has wandered a bit is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. It would be up to the 1voice , our OP to object.

In fact, there are many important issues that spring from our thread question regarding what happened to the Episcopal Church.

So, iloveangels, I will ask you a very direct question. It is a question that you should be able to answer with ease, since you are convinced that Anglo Catholics are really Protestants.

If I’m not able to embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff; and I abandon TEC and the Anglican Communion altogether; where else within Christendom do I go to find the following:

The Nicene Creed including the filioque

The belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church----Catholic (universal, in all times and all places); Apostolic (participating in the Apostles’ teachings (the Scriptures) and fellowship, the breaking of bread (Holy Eucharist) and the prayers (Acts 2:42)

Seven sacraments through which God imparts Graces: Baptism (through which sins are forgiven and we are reborn; including infant Baptism), Holy Eucharist (the Real Presence-transubstantiation), Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Holy Unction

The Blessed Virgin Mary as theotokos and mother of God

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Communion of the Saints

The Divine Inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books

The important role of Tradition

Peace,
Anna

I think that in the end your quandry comes down to the question of authority.

Authority was of course a major one in the NT. Jesus was often asked whose authority he acted under, and he made certain to give twelve.

You make an acknowledgement of that authority when you state you want an apostolic church.

If authority is the issue, then what you personally think becomes less important. I think we all agree that none of the posters here, you and me included, have the authority to decide, theologically, what is right and what is wrong.

Therefore rather than looking at the bits and pieces of the teachings of the faith, instead you should be looking at the question of whether or not its governing body has the authority to both govern the church, and act as it has acted.

 

[Anna_Scott]

We have something called the Analogy of Faith in Catholic theology. Here’s an explanation from the Catechism that describes it better than I can by myself:

“114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.”

The Catholic faith isn’t just a collection of pieces and parts. It’s a coherent whole and each of its parts contributes to the whole. You can’t just lop off parts and expect it to work correctly. Nor can you present a collection of pieces and parts and expect to find the whole thing for your use. To get the whole thing, you need all the parts and in the proper organic relation one to another. The authority of the Pope is one of the essential parts.

My question has nothing to do with the beliefs of Catholics in communion with Rome. You’re avoiding my question.

Anna

 

[iloveangels]

iloveangels,

You are avoiding the question.

I have no intention of starting a sect. Since you insist that I am Protestant, just name one Protestant Church where I could continue these Traditional beliefs.

Anna

With your aversion to authority, you might fit into any of the existing protestant churches. This is the key protestant doctrine.

 

[iloveangels]

My question has nothing to do with the beliefs of Catholics in communion with Rome. You’re avoiding my question.

Anna

Your question has EVERYTHING to do with the beliefs of Catholics in communion with Rome. Either a person is Catholic or they are not. Episcopalians are not Catholics.

And the list of doctrines you have here does not constitute Catholicism. There are parts missing and the Analogy of Faith is missing. The chief missing part is Peter and his successors, which is an essential part.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

Factually incorrect.

 

[Anna_Scott]

iloveangels,

The fact that the thread has wandered a bit is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. It would be up to the 1voice , our OP to object.

In fact, there are many important issues that spring from our thread question regarding what happened to the Episcopal Church.

So, iloveangels, I will ask you a very direct question. It is a question that you should be able to answer with ease, since you are convinced that Anglo Catholics are really Protestants.

If I’m not able to embrace the idea of “submitting religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff; and I abandon TEC and the Anglican Communion altogether; where else within Christendom do I go to find the following:

The Nicene Creed including the filioque

The belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church----Catholic (universal, in all times and all places); Apostolic (participating in the Apostles’ teachings (the Scriptures) and fellowship, the breaking of bread (Holy Eucharist) and the prayers (Acts 2:42)

Seven sacraments through which God imparts Graces: Baptism (through which sins are forgiven and we are reborn; including infant Baptism), Holy Eucharist (the Real Presence-transubstantiation), Reconciliation, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Holy Unction

The Blessed Virgin Mary as theotokos and mother of God

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Communion of the Saints

The Divine Inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books

The important role of Tradition

Peace,
Anna

I think that in the end your quandry comes down to the question of authority.

Authority was of course a major one in the NT. Jesus was often asked whose authority he acted under, and he made certain to give twelve.

You make an acknowledgement of that authority when you state you want an apostolic church.

If authority is the issue, then what you personally think becomes less important. I think we all agree that none of the posters here, you and me included, have the authority to decide, theologically, what is right and what is wrong.

Therefore rather than looking at the bits and pieces of the teachings of the faith, instead you should be looking at the question of whether or not its governing body has the authority to both govern the church, and act as it has acted.

Nine_Two,
My list is not intended to be an all inclusive list of Anglo Catholic beliefs. My point is that the collection of these particular beliefs are not found in any Protestant Church–at least none that I know.

So, if I remain unconvinced of Papal authority, and I leave TEC/Anglicanism, where would I go?

My point is that people are quick to say that I should abandon my conservative Anglo Catholic Parish in TEC; but where would I go? This speaks to only one of the many complicated and gut wrenching issues we are dealing with in the turbulent waters of the Anglican Communion.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

With your aversion to authority, you might fit into any of the existing protestant churches. This is the key protestant doctrine.

Your question has EVERYTHING to do with the beliefs of Catholics in communion with Rome. Either a person is Catholic or they are not. Episcopalians are not Catholics.

And the list of doctrines you have here does not constitute Catholicism. There are parts missing and the Analogy of Faith is missing. The chief missing part is Peter and his successors, which is an essential part.

You are avoiding the question. You claim I am Protestant, but you can’t name one Protestant Church.

Anna

 

[iloveangels]

Nine_Two,
My list is not intended to be an all inclusive list of Anglo Catholic beliefs. My point is that the collection of these particular beliefs are not found in any Protestant Church–at least none that I know.

So, if I remain unconvinced of Papal authority, and I leave TEC/Anglicanism, where would I go?

My point is that people are quick to say that I should abandon my conservative Anglo Catholic Parish in TEC; but where would I go? This speaks to only one of the many complicated and gut wrenching issues we are dealing with in the turbulent waters of the Anglican Communion.

Anna

Well obviously they are found in your church, which is protestant, or you wouldn’t be quoting them to me.

I might suggest to you that if you have beliefs that are characteristic of Episcopalians and you refuse to give on the authority issue, that you are stuck in the Episcopalian church until you change something.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

That is not quite correct. We do in fact call ourselves Catholic, and we believe that the Orthodox Church is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. When the Russians, for example, first came into the United States, they called themselves the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church. There is no such belief in Orthodoxy that we are not Catholic because we do not have a bishop of Rome, nor do we believe that we are in schism from Rome. It is, in fact, just the opposite; we would say that the bishop of Rome and those in union with him are not Catholic because they have lost the true faith.

Is this harsh? Yes. But a Church which denies that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is no true Church at all, from the Orthodox viewpoint.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Eastern Orthodox church is the result of an early schism from Catholicism. Technically it is protestant, but because it predates the reformation, we don’t usually refer to it as such.

… you should be looking at the question of whether or not its governing body has the authority to both govern the church, and act as it has acted.

Nine_Two - good to see you picked up on this thread. Would you agree that EOs are Protestant?

 

[iloveangels]

That is incorrect. We do call ourselves Catholic. We believe that the Orthodox Church is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. When the Russians, for example, first came into the United States, they called themselves the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church. There is no such belief in Orthodoxy that we are not Catholic because we do not have a bishop of Rome. It is, in fact, just the opposite; we would say that the bishop of Rome and those in union with him are not Catholic because they have lost the true faith.

Is this harsh? Yes. But a Church which denies that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is no true Church at all, from the Orthodox viewpoint.

Yeah, well, we’re not in union anyway and haven’t been for nearly a thousand years.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

That is incorrect. We do call ourselves Catholic. We believe that the Orthodox Church is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. When the Russians, for example, first came into the United States, they called themselves the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church. There is no such belief in Orthodoxy that we are not Catholic because we do not have a bishop of Rome. It is, in fact, just the opposite; we would say that the bishop of Rome and those in union with him are not Catholic because they have lost the true faith.

Is this harsh? Yes. But a Church which denies that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is no true Church at all, from the Orthodox viewpoint.

Cavaradossi - would you consider EOs to be Protestant, as has been asserted earlier in this thread?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi - would you consider EOs to be Protestant, as has been asserted earlier in this thread?

No, not at all. Lumping the Orthodox or Catholics into the same group with say the Baptists is a highly disingenuous apologetic tactic.

 

[iloveangels]

That is not quite correct. We do in fact call ourselves Catholic, and we believe that the Orthodox Church is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. When the Russians, for example, first came into the United States, they called themselves the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church. There is no such belief in Orthodoxy that we are not Catholic because we do not have a bishop of Rome, nor do we believe that we are in schism from Rome. It is, in fact, just the opposite; we would say that the bishop of Rome and those in union with him are not Catholic because they have lost the true faith.

Is this harsh? Yes. But a Church which denies that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is no church at all, from the Orthodox viewpoint. We must, however, say such things in order to protect what we believe to be the true faith, passed to us by the Apostles.

Yes, but Cavaradossi, you’re Russian Orthodox, right? The dispute between Rome and the Russian/Greek Orthodox has gone on for almost a thousand years, and I have no intention of rehashing that!

Needless to say, we are also distinctly different Churches.

The actual history would have been almost funny if it had not been so tragic or long-standing. There was a huge dispute that built up over time, and it involved a lot of stuff, some of it meaningful and some of it trivial. And it culminated in one side excommunicating the other and then the other excommunicating the first. Cavaradossi makes it sound sanitary and easy. It was not.

Some of the smaller national groups made their way back to the Roman church, and they took their places among our 21 rites. Some of them never made it back, and here we are to this day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, but Cavaradossi, you’re Russian Orthodox, right? The dispute between Rome and the Russian/Greek Orthodox has gone on for almost a thousand years, and I have no intention of rehashing that!

Needless to say, we are also distinctly different Churches.

Perhaps not as far apart as one might think. The problem is that nobody (East or West) wants to touch the primary issue of the papacy, so communion will probably not be resumed for only God knows how much longer.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, but Cavaradossi, you’re Russian Orthodox, right? The dispute between Rome and the Russian/Greek Orthodox has gone on for almost a thousand years, and I have no intention of rehashing that!

Needless to say, we are also distinctly different Churches.

The actual history would have been almost funny if it had not been so tragic or long-standing. There was a huge dispute that built up over time, and it involved a lot of stuff, some of it meaningful and some of it trivial. And it culminated in one side excommunicating the other and then the other excommunicating the first.

Greek, not Russian, but that really doesn’t make a huge difference, since we are in communion.

Yes, I feel that the schism has come largely as an accident. Unfortunately, it was never fixed and we have moved in rather different directions since. Perhaps one day we will drift close enough again for a resumption of communion, although how such an event would work with the rather exclusive ecclesiology of either Church is a bit of a mystery.