Episcopal Church

[Donna_Mc]

My husband left the Episcopal Church and became Catholic, he was not happy with the direction the church was going (liberal views) he attended Mass with myself and our kids, and through discussions we had he realized that he really needed to become a Catholic! He went to RCIA, and my Dad was his sponsor. He is so glad that he did this and I am grateful to God that he has joined the Church!

 

[mercygate]

When I left the Episcopal Church, I did not see in the Anglican Continuum the hope of a true “continuum” of the catholic Anglicanism I had come to appreciate as a good-faith field seeking reconciliation with Rome and the East, despite the many fine people in that movement (including my own mentor, my daughter’s Godfather). I saw much bitterness and contention. This thread has confirmed that judgment.

 

[GKC]

When I left the Episcopal Church, I did not see in the Anglican Continuum the hope of a true “continuum” of the catholic Anglicanism I had come to appreciate as a good-faith field seeking reconciliation with Rome and the East, despite the many fine people in that movement (including my own mentor, my daughter’s Godfather). I saw much bitterness and contention. This thread has confirmed that judgment.

AFAIK, I’m the only member of the Continuum posting in the thread (subject to correction). Do you mean you find my posts bitter and contentious? If so, I wouldn’t argue the point, such judgments being, by nature, a little subjective, but I would be surprised.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

AFAIK, I’m the only member of the Continuum posting in the thread (subject to correction). Do you mean you find my posts bitter and contentious? If so, I wouldn’t argue the point, such judgments being, by nature, a little subjective, but I would be surprised.

GKC

Of course you are not bitter and contentious (nor is my daughter’s godfather). You are not the only poster in the Anglican Continuum on this thread. And don’t forget our old friend (now in exile) SIA.

From early on the Continuum has had its share of cranks in addition to those of sober disposition. For a while it looked like there would be a bishop in every garage. The consolidations have been gratifying.

 

[elgar]

AFAIK, I’m the only member of the Continuum posting in the thread (subject to correction). Do you mean you find my posts bitter and contentious? If so, I wouldn’t argue the point, such judgments being, by nature, a little subjective, but I would be surprised.

GKC

GKC–I am also a member of the Continuum and have high hopes for the future. A group of us met in a planning session last night and just let me say we were all pumped up to do missionary work. We were never so excited being part of TEC. I can’t explain the enthusiasm. I can only attribute to the the Holy Spirit leading us.

 

[DJgang]

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.

Exactly!

I ask everyone, what does the EC believe?

I’ll tell you and I quote my very own priest (when I was in the EC just a few years ago) “We do not care what you believe as long as we all worship the same”

 

[mercygate]

Exactly!

I ask everyone, what does the EC believe?

I’ll tell you and I quote my very own priest (when I was in the EC just a few years ago) “We do not care what you believe as long as we all worship the same”

He (or she) was echoing the sentiments of Queen Elizabeth I.

 

[GKC]

Of course you are not bitter and contentious (nor is my daughter’s godfather). You are not the only poster in the Anglican Continuum on this thread. And don’t forget our old friend (now in exile) SIA.

From early on the Continuum has had its share of cranks in addition to those of sober disposition. For a while it looked like there would be a bishop in every garage. The consolidations have been gratifying.

Well, as I said, subject to correction. I thought I was all alone.

I’m still watching the consolidations, cautiously. But, yes, one of the 3 points often made about the fractious nature of the Continuum was the Purple Passion.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC–I am also a member of the Continuum and have high hopes for the future. A group of us met in a planning session last night and just let me say we were all pumped up to do missionary work. We were never so excited being part of TEC. I can’t explain the enthusiasm. I can only attribute to the the Holy Spirit leading us.

Glad to meet you.

I wish you, and us, well.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.”

Some Catholics seem fond of claiming that the Episcopal or Anglican church was “founded by a flawed monarch…” This is done as some form of derision of course. The fact is that nothing changed after Henry took on the headship of the church. It was the same catholic church, it just didn’t any longer look to the Pope as head any more. It retained for the most part the same liturgy and teachings. Over time of course, some things changed, as it obviously would as theologians and church officials found some practices not supported by scripture, as well as finding some Orthodox practices no longer in play in the RCC did in fact comport with scripture.

In any case, Henry set up no church, he simple removed the Pope as head of it. It really is time that some Catholics get over this inaccurate and argument provoking claim.

Would we not be better served by serious discussion on real issues rather than posturing like children?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

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.

You continue to engage in circular reasoning, and sadly none of us has the talent to explain it in a way that you can understand. You cannot set up a self-fullfilling set of premises that lead to a conclusion you have pre-ordained as correct. You continue to use the bible and your church’s teachings to prove the truth of the bible and your church’s teachings. I don’t know how to explain it better, but that is what you are doing.

If it was so clear as you BELIEVE it is, then no rational person would disagree with you. There would be no atheists, and everyone would be Roman Catholic. So, since there are so many who don’t agree with you, you must ask yourself, is this my opinion of truth, or is it objective? If objective it must be proveable to everyone’s satisfaction by objective criteria. All you submit is your church’s and your INTERPRETATION of scripture to serve your own ends. This IS NOT PROOF. That you believe it is unquestioned, and is perfectly fine. That you state it as unequivacal and thus that the rest of us are either moronic or satanic driven is unfortunate and uncharitable.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

To say nothing of Gnostics and other groups of Christians who were suppressed over the years. The winner gets to write the interpretation!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I would not agree. That is our strength in some real sense, and we have always adhered to the idea that tradition is to be re-examined as necessary and either upheld if found to be useful and purposeful or discarded if found in error or no longer serving the purpose for which it was instituted. We grow in our interpretation as we grow in learning.

The reasons for people moving from the TEC are many and varied. No one rules. Some of the issues regarding the African church for instance arise from how missionaries taught them regarding monogamy for instance. That is no doubt our own fault, but it has little to do with not having a dogma.

We find that dogma hogties the Church and doesn’t allow it to adapt properly and correctly to new learning and theological growth. We feel, rightly or wrongly that some of the problems in the RCC are caused by them having painted themselves into a corner on things so long ago, having no idea what medicine and other disciplines might uncover in the future which would make their conclusions either irrational or unreasonable today.

It is seldom the case than any one thing is the cause of any one result. And to be perfectly honest, I’d say well more than half of all new Anglicans are unhappy Catholics, and their unhappiness stems from a variety of reasons, never just one.

 

[Contarini]

GKC–I am also a member of the Continuum and have high hopes for the future. A group of us met in a planning session last night and just let me say we were all pumped up to do missionary work. We were never so excited being part of TEC. I can’t explain the enthusiasm. I can only attribute to the the Holy Spirit leading us.

The enthusiasm is pretty easy to explain. Starting a new church and seeing it grow is always exciting. And American culture conditions us to see this kind of work as noble and thrilling.

I don’t think you need the Holy Spirit to explain what you are feeling.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would not agree. That is our strength in some real sense, and we have always adhered to the idea that tradition is to be re-examined as necessary and either upheld if found to be useful and purposeful or discarded if found in error or no longer serving the purpose for which it was instituted.

No, we haven’t “always” held to the amoral and unprincipled pragmatism you are defending. Many of us still don’t.

The English Reformers rejected many Catholic teachings on the grounds that they were (allegedly) contrary to Scripture, which they saw as the permanent and infallible rule of faith. If we are going to abandon that idea this late in the day, the whole basis for historic Anglicanism collapses. The Anglicanism that is based on endless reexamination and a rejection of dogma is nothing but a modernist fantasy.

Some of the issues regarding the African church for instance arise from how missionaries taught them regarding monogamy for instance.

Do you have any idea how patronizing and even racist this sounds to anyone not blessed with your particular ideological blinkers? God forbid that those Africans might actually believe something because they have searched Scripture in the light of tradition and reason and come to believe that traditional Christian sexual morality is actually *true. *That would be so uncool, wouldn’t it?

And no, I’m not suggesting that any criticism of African Christianity is racist. I’m suggesting that we need to take seriously the arguments they make rather than finding some patronizing ad hominem way of explaining them away.

We find that dogma hogties the Church

Speak for yourself. I find no such thing. I became an Anglican because I wanted the historic dogmas of the Faith, not because I was tired of them.

having no idea what medicine and other disciplines might uncover in the future which would make their conclusions either irrational or unreasonable today.

I can’t see what medicine has to do with anything under discussion. I can guess as to how you think it is relevant, but I’m not going to make a bad argument for you. I’ll let you do it.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

No, we haven’t “always” held to the amoral and unprincipled pragmatism you are defending. Many of us still don’t.

The English Reformers rejected many Catholic teachings on the grounds that they were (allegedly) contrary to Scripture, which they saw as the permanent and infallible rule of faith. If we are going to abandon that idea this late in the day, the whole basis for historic Anglicanism collapses. The Anglicanism that is based on endless reexamination and a rejection of dogma is nothing but a modernist fantasy.

Do you have any idea how patronizing and even racist this sounds to anyone not blessed with your particular ideological blinkers? God forbid that those Africans might actually believe something because they have searched Scripture in the light of tradition and reason and come to believe that traditional Christian sexual morality is actually *true. *That would be so uncool, wouldn’t it?

And no, I’m not suggesting that any criticism of African Christianity is racist. I’m suggesting that we need to take seriously the arguments they make rather than finding some patronizing ad hominem way of explaining them away.

Speak for yourself. I find no such thing. I became an Anglican because I wanted the historic dogmas of the Faith, not because I was tired of them.

I can’t see what medicine has to do with anything under discussion. I can guess as to how you think it is relevant, but I’m not going to make a bad argument for you. I’ll let you do it.

Edwin

Only a fellow Anglican could have said it. Thank you.

Spiritmeadow left out the fourth imperative in Anglican nouveau thought: experience. You know well where THAT has led.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, we haven’t “always” held to the amoral and unprincipled pragmatism you are defending. Many of us still don’t.

The English Reformers rejected many Catholic teachings on the grounds that they were (allegedly) contrary to Scripture, which they saw as the permanent and infallible rule of faith. If we are going to abandon that idea this late in the day, the whole basis for historic Anglicanism collapses. The Anglicanism that is based on endless reexamination and a rejection of dogma is nothing but a modernist fantasy.

I guess we practice rather different forms of Anglicanism. I can only speak to mine of course, and leave yours to you.

Do you have any idea how patronizing and even racist this sounds to anyone not blessed with your particular ideological blinkers? God forbid that those Africans might actually believe something because they have searched Scripture in the light of tradition and reason and come to believe that traditional Christian sexual morality is actually *true. *That would be so uncool, wouldn’t it?

Goodness that is uncalled for. Our sister church in Swaziland helped us to understand why there is opposition to homosexual union, by explaining how missionaries taught them originally. They feel that now those teaching are being turned upside down. We taught them incorrectly in the first place. I have every expectation that the African church will continue to show us new and wonderful ways of expressing our faith. They bring wonderful gifts to the table. You misunderstand my remarks completely.
And no, I’m not suggesting that any criticism of African Christianity is racist. I’m suggesting that we need to take seriously the arguments they make rather than finding some patronizing ad hominem way of explaining them away.

Speak for yourself. I find no such thing. I became an Anglican because I wanted the historic dogmas of the Faith, not because I was tired of them.

AGain, I guess we have parish approaches. We rely on scripture, tradition and reason. Dogma plays no part in our teaching as such. And our priest just a couple of months ago, spoke to our constant re-evaluation of tradition to see if it still does what it was designed to do. I don’t judge your parish wrong, it is different than mine, and I hope it serves your needs. I’m rather confused at your rancor however. But you have pointed out that I should be careful to “speak for myself” and my church rather than the the TEC at large. I am aware that we are not all of one mind.

I can’t see what medicine has to do with anything under discussion. I can guess as to how you think it is relevant, but I’m not going to make a bad argument for you. I’ll let you do it.

LIke I said, I see no reason to be rude. I believe that what we have learned in many disciplines makes some RCC teaching inappropriate and wrong, However they are stuck in dogma as I see. Personal opinion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Only a fellow Anglican could have said it. Thank you.

Spiritmeadow left out the fourth imperative in Anglican nouveau thought: experience. You know well where THAT has led.

My my, but RCC just love dissention and fighting it seems. Kinda sad I think.

 

[Contarini]

To say nothing of Gnostics and other groups of Christians who were suppressed over the years.

Do you think the Gnostics were right?

Edwin

 

[elgar]

Do you think the Gnostics were right?

Edwin

The rector of a parish (Iowa City) I left in TEC 6 years ago had no problem with the Gnostic gospels. In fact, he preached from the gospel of Thomas at a choral evensong. The appointed one was from John, but was explained John was offensive to the Jews. TEC just loves “new age” everything. When “Da Vinci Code” came out they all went gaga. I actually think they believed Dan Brown’s novel to be true. More followed like Communion to everyone regardless of Baptism in the name of the Trinity. The same rector celebrates the “winter solstice” with a drum service. You just can’t make this stuff up.

What I find amusing is how on the surface they appear to be Catholic and traditional with all the trappings of vestments, bells, occasional incense, processions, retreats, genuflecting, etc., but if you talk to these folks, they tend not to believe in moral absolutes and are relativistic to the core. Just what is the point? Also, there was a very cozy relationship with the Unitarians down the street.

I’ve been everything from RC, Lutheran to Episcopalian and yes, the pews are dominated by former catholics. The Catholic church of the 1950s was huge but the folks were not secure in their faith. It didn’t take much for the house to come down with the shake down in the radical 60s and 70s. Instead of trying to be all things to all people, the Catholic Church under PBXVI shows promise for a truer albeit smaller Church.