Episcopal Church

[Contarini]

You may believe what you wish, but I have a terribly hard time thinking that God worries about “terminological precision”. I think he judges the heart.

Exactly. But we can’t even know our own hearts, let alone those of others. So we should focus on the things we do understand, like language.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

Exactly. But we can’t even know our own hearts, let alone those of others. So we should focus on the things we do understand, like language.

Edwin

Ah. Edwin. Ever the voice of peace and reason. How refreshing.

 

[Contarini]

That’s the scandalous thing about Catholicism. She claims so much for herself that if it’s true, you MUST join her, or if not, you MUST flee her.

An appealing argument, but I’m not sure it holds up.

There are good reasons why Catholics have come to believe what you believe. Even if you are wrong, it doesn’t follow that you are Antichrist, just that you are another part of the Church with humanly understandable delusions of grandeur.

The “aut corpus christi aut congregatio Satani” argument is a convenient one (and may have more going for it than the Christological equivalent which C. S. Lewis popularized), because it lowers the standard of proof you have to meet considerably. All you have to show is that you are not a monstrously evil religious body with no redeeming features, and hey presto! we have to accept your claims.

Sorry, but I don’t think it’s that easy.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It wasn’t the apostate parishes that bothered me, it was all the parishes, priests and bishops that say the Creed with their fingers crossed (or worse, ‘nuance’ the words into meaninglessness). Those are not anomalies. These are the “powers that be” in TEC.

Again, you are making a rather presumptuous claim to know that people really think something quite different from what they say.

Edwin

 

[benedictgal]

The difficult thing is that, as Catholics, we believe that the Episcopal Church is in serious error. Therefore, if the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, then God cannot lead you out of her and into a body which teaches heresy. If the Catholic Church is NOT what she claims to be, then by all means, get out while you can, because surely she’s a spiritual danger to all her members.

That’s the scandalous thing about Catholicism. She claims so much for herself that if it’s true, you MUST join her, or if not, you MUST flee her.

Today, it’s much easier… much more comfortable… to be a member of a church that doesn’t make these lofty claims and difficult demands.

I can’t condemn anyone who decides to follow their conscience out of the Church. But, being a convert, it wounds me to see someone who already HAS the Truth sitting right there walk away from it. It’s a terribly sad thing for me to see.

My recommendation is to keep praying, but ALSO do some more research and reading into what the Church teaches and why (regarding the things you may not agree with). Also, maybe try worshipping at a different parish, perhaps an Eastern Rite parish if one’s available. I’ll keep you in my prayers, Mike.

That is an excellent post. Sometimes, it takes a convert to remind us about the real Truth of our Church. This is the Faith that many, many people died professing. What boggles my mind is the notion that someone would knowingly leave the authentic Church founded by Jesus Christ in favor of one founded by a flawed monarch who was upset because he didn’t get his way and decided to go on his own.

As I indicated in a previous post, there were many, many Jews who were ready to proclaim Jesus as their king, but, once they heard his Bread of Life discourse, they abandoned Him. Peter and the Eleven remained behind because, as Christ’s Vicar noted, “to whom shall we go; you have the words of Eternal Life.”

 

[VARC]

There is no scriptural precedent for having women ordained into the priesthood…

And where is the “scriptural precedent” for conclaves, indulgences, crusades, papal states, mandated clerical celibacy, monastics orders, a medatrix of all graces, inquistions that practice torture, etc, etc.

I’m not saying that women’s ordination is legitimate but it is quite hypocritical for a Roman Catholic to require “scriptural precedent” for anything.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Keep in mind, while this is the opinion of the Catholic Church (and you), to the Episcopal/Anglican Church they are indeed valid and real.

And, above all, fruitful.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It was Apostolicae Curae, issued over the signature of Leo XIII (mainly written by Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val) in 1896, which declared that Anglicans orders were absolutely null and utterly void, for technical reasons related to the Edwardine Ordinal. Though that was not precisely the question that the Papal commission was chartered to answer. Hence, all RCs should affirm that as true.

It will not surprise you that Anglicans don’t necessarily agree with that assertion.

Apostolicae Curae, like Henry VIII. is a hobby of mine.

GKC

Why do the other two documents - Immo Saepius (Anglican) in 1897 & the Reply to it of the Catholic Archbishops (1898) never get a mention ?​

 

[benedictgal]

And where is the “scriptural precedent” for conclaves, indulgences, crusades, papal states, mandated clerical celibacy, monastics orders, a medatrix of all graces, inquistions that practice torture, etc, etc.

I’m not saying that women’s ordination is legitimate but it is quite hypocritical for a Roman Catholic to require “scriptural precedent” for anything.

No, it is not hypocrytical, not in the least. Jesus entrusted to St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and he also entrusted him and his successos with the authority to bind and loose. It seems that when folks do not have a leg to stand on, they start hurling all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the faith of the Church and the fact that She is the depository of Divine Revelation and the Fullness of Truth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Truth isn’t about us finding what fits us

It is about us fitting in with what God wants from us

You have it the wrong way around

Yes, it may be tough as a Catholic, following all that God wants from us, but He is there for strength, just pray

Is it then a matter of the​

• bed of Procrustes"]bed of Procrustes ?
  To say the person has to be adjusted to the religion is to treat the person as a mere thing, & that the system, whether religion, or party, or anything else, is more important. It makes the individual a cog in a machine. The individual can go to the wall - the Cause & The Party (or Church, or whatever) alone matter. How is this different in principle from Soviet collectivism ?

 

[VARC]

It seems that when folks do not have a leg to stand on, they start hurling all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the faith of the Church…

That’s bull. Indulgences and Mary’s mediation of all graces **are **the faith of the Roman Catholic Church yet they have no “scriptural precedent”. Not to mention the Assumption, purgatory, and the treasury of merits. So it is quite hypocritical for a Roman Catholic to require “scriptural precedent” from anyone.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s bull. Indulgences and Mary’s mediation of all graces **are **the faith of the Roman Catholic Church yet they have no “scriptural precedent”. Not to mention the Assumption, purgatory, and the treasury of merits. So it is quite hypocritical for a Roman Catholic to require “scriptural precedent” from anyone.

Purgatory is indeed scriptural. While it does not say it by name, there is a strong reference to it in the Book of Wisdom:

1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: 3 And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. 4 And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. 5 Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.

6 As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. 7 The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds. 8 They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. 9 They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect. 10 But the wicked shall be punished according to their own devices: who have neglected the just, and have revolted from the Lord.

There is also biblical basis for the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. Remember, we stand both on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Furthermore, the Bible sprang from the Church, not the other way around.

 

[VARC]

Purgatory is indeed scriptural. There is also biblical basis for the Assumption of the Blessed Mother.

I would ask where but I will spare you from embarrassing yourself.

Furthermore, the Bible sprang from the Church, not the other way around.

I concede that the New Testament came form the Church just not the Roman church exclusively.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is the citation from the Book of Revelation regarding the Woman clothed with the Sun, who is the New Ark of the Covenant: Mary:

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

Regarding your concession, please bear in mind that for 1,500 years, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church. In fact, the name Catholic appears in the earliest writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[VARC]

Here is the citation from the Book of Revelation regarding the Woman clothed with the Sun, who is the New Ark of the Covenant: Mary:

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

I tried to spare you the embarassment of trying to provide scriptural proof of the assumption but you couldn’t let it go and now you have just painted yourself into an exegetical corner. If you assert that the woman in Revelations is Mary (which I do not concede) than you have just disproved the Immaculate Conception because the woman is trailing in birth pains: a consequence of original sin. So how is the woman Mary, who was supposedly immaculately conceived, if the same woman is suffering from the consequences of original sin?

Regarding your concession, please bear in mind that for 1,500 years, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church. In fact, the name Catholic appears in the earliest writings of the Church Fathers.

You need to look past the protestant reformation and expand your frame of reference. The Copts, Armenians, and the Jacobites broke away from Rome in the 400s and the Greeks and Slavs seperated in 1000s. So your assertion that everything was hunky dory under Rome’s control until Martin Luther is way off.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This thread is primarily addressed to former Catholics who joined the Episcopal Church, or for present Catholics who are former members of the Episcopal Church. However, others may join in.

I find myself being drawn to the Episcopal Church, in fact I went to one of their services yesterday. As a life long Catholic, it would be hard to leave the Catholic Church, but I find the Episcopal Church to possibly be a better fit for me and my present way of thinking. I constantly pray on it and ask God to lead me to where he thinks I should be.

I personally believe that if you are a Christian, you have the same chance as any other Christian in getting to Heaven someday; whether you are a Catholic or Protestant is secondary. Even if you are a different faith altogether doesn’t necessarily disqualify you, but that is a topic for a different thread. I know this thinking will alarm some of the hard core Catholics who hang on this forum, but that is how I feel.

Comments from the type of folks I addressed this too in the first paragraph?

The problem with the Episcopal Church is that it has not standard of belief.

What it believes today will probably not be what it believes in five years.

That’s why so many are leaving the Church.

 

[VARC]

Purgatory is indeed scriptural. While it does not say it by name, there is a strong reference to it in the Book of Wisdom:

1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: 3 And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. 4 And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality. 5 Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself.

6 As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them. 7 The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds. 8 They shall judge nations, and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. 9 They that trust in him, shall understand the truth: and they that are faithful in love shall rest in him: for grace and peace is to his elect. 10 But the wicked shall be punished according to their own devices: who have neglected the just, and have revolted from the Lord.

First of all providing scrpitural evidence of purgatory from only the book of Wisdom is a pretty unstable scriptural foundation to begin with. The canonicity of the book of not accepted by many of the Fathers and the Roman church did not formalize its canonicity until after the Reformation.

Secondly, nowhere in the citation speaks of a holding place where souls have pay the temporal price for theirs sins after death. One needs to be coached by the pope to reach that conclusion.

Finally, you are ignoring the context of the passage which refers to the suffering of the just durings their lives and deaths not some in between place after death.

 

[GKC]

Why do the other two documents - Immo Saepius (Anglican) in 1897 & the Reply to it of the Catholic Archbishops (1898) never get a mention ?​

If you look deep enough, say in Fr. J. J. Hughes, they do. Though on the Anglican side I only know of the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (written by the bishop of Salisbury),*Saepius Officio *. Which has a weakness in the treatment of intent. I assume that the RC reply you mention is the "Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae. You can find it, too, in a lot of palces, as in

 

[GKC]

Why do the other two documents - Immo Saepius (Anglican) in 1897 & the Reply to it of the Catholic Archbishops (1898) never get a mention ?​

If you look deep enough, say in Fr. J. J. Hughes, they do. Though on the Anglican side I only know of the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (written by the Bishop of Salisbury), Responsio Archiepiscoporum Angliae ad Litteras Apostolicas Leonis Papae XIII De Ordinationibus Anglicanis (*Saepius Officio *). Which has a weakness in the treatment of intent. I assume that the RC reply you mention is the “Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae”. You can find it, too, in a lot of places, as in E. C. Messenger.

And there is Leo’s reply to the Anglican Archbishops, *Epistola Ad Archiepiscopos Angliae *.

In truth, I think it’s all a little technical for most folks, given that the end, for RCs, is already known.

For Anglicans, it’s otherwise.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

Again, you are making a rather presumptuous claim to know that people really think something quite different from what they say.

Edwin

I think you’re being disingenuous here. I’m not judging based on my intuition, but on the actual WORDS of some of these Bishops and Priests. I’m not saying everyone in TEC is some kind of revisionist apostate, but there’s obviously a large power bloc of those who are one, the other, or both. Spong and Righter being only the most egregious examples (and are often lionized by mainstream TECers)