Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[cothrige]

Actually I think that, to an extent, SpiritMeadow has a point. I had asked her “If ‘in Christ there is no slave or free, male or female’ means that women can be priests and bishops, then wouldn’t St. Paul himself have understood it that way?” (and you’d asked pretty much the same thing), hence I think it’s fair for her to bring in the theory that St. Paul wasn’t the author of those other Scripture verses.

Okay, I can concede that, insofar as we are speaking only of possible authorship, and not authority. And I can see how it would be relevant to your specific point. But I would still maintain that regardless of the author, though I see no reason to doubt its historic attribution, it is authoritative and since St. Paul never actually contradicts it elsewhere we have no reason to suppose he disagreed with it.

 

[cothrige]

you seem to be approaching things from a fundamentalist point of view.

I am taking the Catholic approach, which you may call fundamentalist. I don’t know what you have in mind.

To say that some portions of scripture are erroneous is not to say they are uninspired.

Clearly, you and I have two very different ideas of what inspired means. And if some portion of scripture can be erroneous, then you may as well have no scripture at all.

Inspired persons can make error and incorrectly perceive truth. There is nothing evil about it, and many of these scholars are Catholics in good standing with the Church.

Again, I am not entirely sure what you mean by “in good standing” or what you may think it proves. As far as I know Richard McBrien and Teddy Kennedy could both be described that way, and yet I wouldn’t suggest that anything they say is representative of Catholic thought.

I would perhaps give more credence to scripture itself that to the Church, that is akin to idolaltry I would suggest.

Are you saying that giving more credence to the Church than to scripture is idolatry? Or the other way around? A case for one could surely be a case for the other.

However, you are in error anyway. I don’t give “more credence” to the Church, but merely give credence to the Scriptures because the Church teaches it. I am not the one suggesting that the Bible has errors in it. But, I don’t believe the scriptures are true because the Bible says so, but because the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth” does. As St. Augustine said I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. And that same authority has spoken about the priesthood, and so I accept that too. Who would I serve to reject that because of some modern idea about gender equality?

 

[Daedelus76]

I have never heard of this before, and I thought I was fairly well read in both the Tractarian and the Ritualist movements. She was ordained, then? Through the imposition of hands, by at least one bishop?.

You might know more than me on that point… surely the idea of deaconesses is not new to you? The local Continuing Anglican comes from a branch that split in the late 60’s and has gradually gained congregations over the years, and even they have a deaconess, she wears a habit. I believe deacons and deaconesses are considered “lay ministry”?

 

[GKC]

You might know more than me on that point… surely the idea of deaconesses is not new to you? The local Continuing Anglican comes from a branch that split in the late 60’s and has gradually gained congregations over the years, and even they have a deaconess, she wears a habit. I believe deacons and deaconesses are considered “lay ministry”?

I’m a Continuing Anglican. And certainly there is enough variety amongst the tribe that I couldn’t speak definitively, but I am unaware of any Continuing jurisdiction that considers deaconesses as ordained. As a lay ministry, it makes more sense.

What little I have found on the idea in Anglicanism historically since we have been speaking suggests there was a movement, starting with the Ritualists in 1855, that involved Anglican"deaconesses" but that there was considerable argument over whether they were lay, or in orders. Lambeth, 1930, was the last ruling on it; they were lay.

In Anglicanism, historically, the office of deacon has been not lay, but in orders. My son in law is one such.

An interesting topic.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I just don’t have alot of faith in arguments from American Episcopalians anymore. When Gene Robinson gets up in front of GLAAD to tell them how wrong Christians are, showing more allegiance to his homosexual cohorts than to the Christian church… and he is not disciplined… I really don’t have alot of faith in Episcopalianism to know the will of God. The whole thing smacks of humanism.

I’d be curious to read this NRSV and research why they think some words attributed to Paul aren’t the authentic words. Regardless, I agree more with the Catholic position- it’s tradition, it’s done, and it actually doesn’t matter if it’s in the Bible or not. Ordaining women is the first step to ordaining everything else. The Anglican church traditionally had deaconesses and IMO that is good enough.

Well if you are prepared to discount everything then there is no point, but I would argue that Bishop Robinson has perfect allegiance to the Christian church. His arguments are agreed to by many, and certainly there is an extraordinary amount of theological and exegetical evidence out there to support him. He is doing nothing more than claiming that Christ would not disparage gays in the way that some in the church have. I accept that you have a different opinion and that means for you that at least some in TEC are unworthy of your attention. Of course whether it more properly discerns the will of God remains to be seen.

The answer to the second, is simply this. The paragraph in question is completely out of line with the 7 books everyone agrees were written by Paul. If you remove the paragraph the sense of the verses continue appropriately without breaking for another subject. The location of the verse in the margin in some early manuscripts suggests it was added as perhaps an assumption that this should go in.

Timothy was written it is believed after Paul had died. The same is true of Titus I believe.

What others are you talking about that you “fear” would become priests? men, women, and ??? animals? I thought there were only two sexes. I would think we have little to fear that the world will be overrun by hermaphodites wanting to be ordained.

I’ll be sure that your opinion that having women who are deacons is good enough for us, is sent on to the diocese. I’ll let you know what they think. Just kidding, peace.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Even supposing that the women in question ought to be allowed to “live out their dream” of being priests, I would still find it quite disturbing that you juxtapose that with the idea of slaves being allowed to “live out their dream” by being freed.

I admit the comparison fails in the area of numbers, but otherwise I believe it valid. It is in no way meant to suggest that one is as great a burden as the other, but to jar the senses into seeing how unfair it is to ask people to do without what is naturally right for them to have. All burdened people either by race, gender, orientation, ageism etc, chaff at the suggestion that they should step back and give up as a matter of obedience. Blacks were told that, so were the poor in Latin America. Women certainly. To be denied a right is simply unfair.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Okay, I can concede that, insofar as we are speaking only of possible authorship, and not authority. And I can see how it would be relevant to your specific point. But I would still maintain that regardless of the author, though I see no reason to doubt its historic attribution, it is authoritative and since St. Paul never actually contradicts it elsewhere we have no reason to suppose he disagreed with it.

Well Paul does in fact contradict it, that is the point after all. There is no evidence that paul was aware or could have been aware of them either. Most were thought to have been written after his death. By the same token, it is not thought that the Gospel writers were aware of Paul’s letters at all, and clearly he wrote his letters well before any Gospel writer wrote his Gospel.

I don’t know and neither do you what the council would have decided had it known that Paul was not the author and not the probable author of some of the letters attributed to him. They might well have determined not to include them in the canon. We cannot know this. All we know is that forever since then, we have been unable to reconcile the obvious contraditions between the letters.

Philemon for instance is a clear and direct almost order to free a slave and goes hand in hand with Paul’s theology of neither slave nor free. Yet in the disputed texts of Timothy and others slaves are told to obey their masters. These cannot be reconciled in any fashion except to understand that they were written by different authors and were frankly an attempt to turn back from the radical theology of Paul which I would argue, very clearly is in direct line with the radical teaching of Jesus.

But I am fine if you disagree. Each is free to investigate and then believe what they wish.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just don’t have alot of faith in arguments from American Episcopalians anymore. When Gene Robinson gets up in front of GLAAD to tell them how wrong Christians are, showing more allegiance to his homosexual cohorts than to the Christian church… and he is not disciplined… I really don’t have alot of faith in Episcopalianism to know the will of God. The whole thing smacks of humanism.

I’d be curious to read this NRSV and research why they think some words attributed to Paul aren’t the authentic words. Regardless, I agree more with the Catholic position- it’s tradition, it’s done, and it actually doesn’t matter if it’s in the Bible or not. Ordaining women is the first step to ordaining everything else. The Anglican church traditionally had deaconesses and IMO that is good enough.

Great post, Daedelus! Take Oprah, Gnosticism, the Village People, the Dalai Lama, as well as neo pagans and universalists, throw them into a salad with some abortion doctors for croutons and you have the Episcopal Church. What drives these folks nuts is that, deep down, they know the Pope is right on all of these issues. And they know that the Catholic Church is THE Church on a steady current for all of its personal and individual faults. It doesn’t deviate no matter how badly these liberals want it to. They jump ship to the Episcopal Church. They cover their mirrors of themselves with priestly collars, the idolatry of self pride and a rejection of the “your ways are not my ways” heart of the scriptures, and replace it with a mirror theology. God will reflect THEM, not they reflecting God. Throw in some nice buildings, priestly colors, some great liturgical lingo, and a feel-good, no-strings, no hangups, no responsibility, and no morality required, and there ya go…

I would trust the advice of a fence post more than Gene Robinson or that mad professor of an “Archbishop of Canterbury” they have…oh man!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m a Continuing Anglican. And certainly there is enough variety amongst the tribe that I couldn’t speak definitively, but I am unaware of any Continuing jurisdiction that considers deaconesses as ordained. As a lay ministry, it makes more sense.

What little I have found on the idea in Anglicanism historically since we have been speaking suggests there was a movement, starting with the Ritualists in 1855, that involved Anglican"deaconesses" but that there was considerable argument over whether they were lay, or in orders. Lambeth, 1930, was the last ruling on it; they were lay.

In Anglicanism, historically, the office of deacon has been not lay, but in orders. My son in law is one such.

An interesting topic.

GKC

In Anglicanism the diaconate isn’t lay, it is part of holy orders I thought…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I

am taking the Catholic approach, which you may call fundamentalist. I don’t know what you have in mind.

 

[GKC]

In Anglicanism the diaconate isn’t lay, it is part of holy orders I thought…

Agreed. But there seems to be some confusion, between 1855, and 1930, WRT a group called deaconesses, though the details are not clear.

GKC

 

[cothrige]

Well Paul does in fact contradict it, that is the point after all.

I have seen nothing from anyone indicating a contradiction. Paul never explicitly says that women should be ordained to the priesthood, therefore there is no contradiction. You are assuming there is one only because you have read your own interpretations into his words.

By the same token, it is not thought that the Gospel writers were aware of Paul’s letters at all, and clearly he wrote his letters well before any Gospel writer wrote his Gospel.

This is certainly assuming a great deal. St. Luke travelled with St. Paul and so I find it hard to believe that he was ignorant of his letters.

I don’t know and neither do you what the council would have decided had it known that Paul was not the author and not the probable author of some of the letters attributed to him.

I am not sure which council you mean but the Church did in fact accept the authorship of the letters. This was decided by the Church with the Holy Spirit and that settled it. I think you are ignoring this rather important fact. As it is you may as well wonder what things would have been like had the Church decided to worship the Buddha.

They might well have determined not to include them in the canon. We cannot know this. All we know is that forever since then, we have been unable to reconcile the obvious contraditions between the letters.

But, there are no contradictions. For two thousand years we have had no trouble understanding what the letters are saying and how they work together. Contradictions exist only because people try to engage in eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Philemon for instance is a clear and direct almost order to free a slave and goes hand in hand with Paul’s theology of neither slave nor free. Yet in the disputed texts of Timothy and others slaves are told to obey their masters. These cannot be reconciled in any fashion except to understand that they were written by different authors and were frankly an attempt to turn back from the radical theology of Paul which I would argue, very clearly is in direct line with the radical teaching of Jesus.

But, you are manufacturing a contradiction where absolutely none exists. Paul never tells Onesimus to disobey his master, which means nothing in Philemon is contrary to what is in 1 Timothy. Paul also never actually tells Philemon to free Onesimus, but rather to receive him as a brother in the faith. Conversely, he tells the slaves in 1 Timothy the very same thing with the words But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren. Paul’s teaching is consistent throughout these two letters, and any contradiction is not the fault of the author but of the reader.

 

[cothrige]

You may, I don’t know. I know that the RCC professes not to approach scripture from a fundamentalist (literalism) approach. I find that some RC’s are fundamentalists, although I suspect most are not.

Literalism has nothing to do with our discussion. I was not talking about how to interpret a particular passage, but whether one part of the scripture is without error and inspired, and another part isn’t. That has nothing to do with literalism or the like.

I sometimes wonder if some here read the CAF tracts on apologetics since I heard the same answers and phrases all the time. To throw out the scriptures because some parts are found erroneous would be foolish. There are vastly different takes in Acts and in Paul’s authentic letters on his own activities for instance. Both can’t be right.

Both are right. But, that also isn’t the point. What I am saying is that if you reject the truth of the Church’s teaching on scripture and decide that this or that verse is uninspired or erroneous, then there is no boundary on your choice. As you get new ideas you simply realise that more and more of scripture is wrong. At that point you are not growing and being guided by your faith, but your faith is being guided by your own preconceived ideas. And at that point there is no reason to call something scripture since you can just alter the definition every time you find it convenient.

To suggest that God authored things, means that God is a fairly lousy writer in the sense that there has never yet been accord as to what it all means. That’s why the field of exegesis and theology continues to be such a fruitful field of exploration. The Vatican has a whole host of experts who spend every day trying to dissect the meaning and history of scripture.

*Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church… holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

From Dei Verbum (The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)​

*

Posted as an example of why I disagree with you.

I haven’t read anything by McBrien other than his treatise on Catholicism which was pretty standard reading years ago. Ted Kennedy doesn’t write about religion as far as I know. I am talking about mostly Catholic biblical experts and theologians teaching in mostly but not universally Catholic colleges and universities around the country. But then, I’m told that most of those are not worth listening to as most of them have been corrupted with liberalism. I’m sure we would not agree on sources.

No, we would not. A Catholic teacher is right not by being himself Catholic, but by teaching what the Church herself teaches.

Certainly allowing the Church to define scripture for you period without reasonable investigation would be in some sense idolatrous. When people say the Church tells me truth, without more, I call that worship of Church rather than God.

So, who do you listen to when deciding about the Bible? Historians? You worship them then, right? Do you decide for yourself based on what you read in the Bible? Then you worship yourself, right?

I am sorry, but this is an absurd line of reasoning. I listen to the Church because Christ commands it. The Church has the promise of the Spirit, which nobody outside of the Church has. We are not tallking about buying a new car, but accepting what revelation is, and what it means.

I fail to see the difference actually. You don’t allow the bible to self define itself as truth, but you allow the RCC to self-define itself as truth giving? St. Augustine has many good opinions and some not so good.

I don’t allow the Bible to do that? Absurd. The Bible doesn’t do it. The Table of Contents at the front is not inspired, btw. We have a bible because the Church gave it to us. We know what is in it because the Church told us what is in it. We know that it is true because the Church told us it is true.

I have no problem if you wish to accept what your church teaches you to believe. But of course, my argument is not that gender equality is modern, but that it is as old as Jesus and Paul.

But, they never said it. You say they did because you decide what the words really mean and which words are accurate and which are not. It is not Jesus or Paul saying this, but you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Great post, Daedelus! Take Oprah, Gnosticism, the Village People, the Dalai Lama, as well as neo pagans and universalists, throw them into a salad with some abortion doctors for croutons and you have the Episcopal Church. What drives these folks nuts is that, deep down, they know the Pope is right on all of these issues. And they know that the Catholic Church is THE Church on a steady current for all of its personal and individual faults. It doesn’t deviate no matter how badly these liberals want it to. They jump ship to the Episcopal Church. They cover their mirrors of themselves with priestly collars, the idolatry of self pride and a rejection of the “your ways are not my ways” heart of the scriptures, and replace it with a mirror theology. God will reflect THEM, not they reflecting God. Throw in some nice buildings, priestly colors, some great liturgical lingo, and a feel-good, no-strings, no hangups, no responsibility, and no morality required, and there ya go…

I would trust the advice of a fence post more than Gene Robinson or that mad professor of an “Archbishop of Canterbury” they have…oh man!

your post is highly distasteful on may levels. your group a bunch of folks, theories and so on together, all your personal hatreds no doubt and claim that somehow they represent TEC. That you hate TEC with a passion is so clear that one is forced to think that it is you who are trying desperately to cleanse yourself from all that is TEC in some sad attempt to prove your RC worth. We do not “deep down know” we are wrong, we believe it passionately. I find it odd that so many new Catholics seem to have to denigrate their previous faiths to such a degree. Much as one who speaks poorly of their past relationships with spousal or less, it speaks so ever much more of the speaker than the one they so vilify.

We sincerely hope you have found peace in the RCC but alas it seems you have become a strident ranting screamer. It is not attractive. I suspect you are still far from happy.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have seen nothing from anyone indicating a contradiction. Paul never explicitly says that women should be ordained to the priesthood, therefore there is no contradiction. You are assuming there is one only because you have read your own interpretations into his words.

Good grief I would never let my interpretation of scripture be definitive. That would be the height of arrogance. I read extensively and follow the logic of those who have spent a lifetime teaching and researching, writing and explaining. I don’t know koine greek or hebrew which is required to even begin such a task. I merely follow what the majority of experts agree upon.

This is certainly assuming a great deal. St. Luke travelled with St. Paul and so I find it hard to believe that he was ignorant of his letters.

It is not thought that the Luke that traveled with Paul was the Luke of the Gospel. If so, he would not have conflicted with Paul on so many issues of location and travel.

I am not sure which council you mean but the Church did in fact accept the authorship of the letters. This was decided by the Church with the Holy Spirit and that settled it. I think you are ignoring this rather important fact. As it is you may as well wonder what things would have been like had the Church decided to worship the Buddha.

There is little point in discussing this when your mind is closed to possibilities that things are not as you assume. If you merely look to the church to tell you what to believe, we can stop now. You believe of course that what is must be what should be since the HS, your church teaches cannot lead the church astray. That is a valuable method by which to maintain control I am sure.

But, there are no contradictions. For two thousand years we have had no trouble understanding what the letters are saying and how they work together. Contradictions exist only because people try to engage in eisegesis rather than exegesis.

I have explained my reasoning and clearly stated that it is not my interpretation. If you are going to try to engage in debate by simply making up what you want me to say to you can refute it, we have no basis for continuing.

But, you are manufacturing a contradiction where absolutely none exists. Paul never tells Onesimus to disobey his master, which means nothing in Philemon is contrary to what is in 1 Timothy. Paul also never actually tells Philemon to free Onesimus, but rather to receive him as a brother in the faith. Conversely, he tells the slaves in 1 Timothy the very same thing with the words But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren. Paul’s teaching is consistent throughout these two letters, and any contradiction is not the fault of the author but of the reader.

Then you fail to realize that Paul was essentially ordering Philemon to free Onesimus who had fled him. Timothy gives no such luxury to slaves, they are to be obedient, not run away. They are in direct contradition.

I have said, you may not, as a ultra conservative Catholic, feel free to question scripture. If you do not, that is perfectly okay. Be honest enough to say that instead of twisting it to mean what it clearly does not.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Literalism has nothing to do with our discussion. I was not talking about how to interpret a particular passage, but whether one part of the scripture is without error and inspired, and another part isn’t. That has nothing to do with literalism or the like.

Oh I think literalism is quite on point. If one is not free to understand what words mean in their time and place and that they do not necessarily mean the same as we would use them, then we cannot discuss much in terms of scripture.

Both are right. But, that also isn’t the point. What I am saying is that if you reject the truth of the Church’s teaching on scripture and decide that this or that verse is uninspired or erroneous, then there is no boundary on your choice. As you get new ideas you simply realise that more and more of scripture is wrong. At that point you are not growing and being guided by your faith, but your faith is being guided by your own preconceived ideas. And at that point there is no reason to call something scripture since you can just alter the definition every time you find it convenient.

I reject any truth that the RCC teaches that I believe is in error. To say that some part is erroneous means of course that all is subect to examination, but much, in fact very much is accepted as accurately given. Boundaries are the accepted hermeneutical tools that and standards that are used in examining all ancient documents. I have no preconceived ideas whatsoever. I read extensively from those who are especially trained in teh subject. Many as I said are Roman Catholic. You can make various claims, but of course, you are just making claims. Scripture is what it is.

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church… holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

From Dei Verbum (The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)​

Posted as an example of why I disagree with you.

Yes I know well what your church teaches, and I have no problem with your agreeing to it and not examining further. It is your free choice to do so. I choose to learn and benefit from many sources, as I said, many from your own Church. Why is it do you think that your Church does not suppress these men and women? I have heard of no excommunications lately.

No, we would not. A Catholic teacher is right not by being himself Catholic, but by teaching what the Church herself teaches.

you are right. Here at CAF most of them are vilified I find since they don’t teach what the learned right wing experts here define as truth.

So, who do you listen to when deciding about the Bible? Historians? You worship them then, right? Do you decide for yourself based on what you read in the Bible? Then you worship yourself, right?

My so quick to throw the word worship. I have yet to worship a person. I have great regard for all who learn. But alas, many who do don’t seem all that smart. Many are brilliant. The trick is to read widely enough to begin to discern the difference. If all historians were brilliant, there wouldn’t be much to write about. The disagree a lot, but then I assume you wouldn’t know that, not reading them. But it isn’t historians. They cannot teach me much on the bible, perhaps some anthropologists can. But mostly biblical experts and theologians. They are lodged mostly in the divinity departments of universities. They teach bible studies and theology. I seldom rely on my own reading. I’ve said that before, yet you continually accuse me of it. Worshiping self would be gravely disordered I think.

I am sorry, but this is an absurd line of reasoning. I listen to the Church because Christ commands it. The Church has the promise of the Spirit, which nobody outside of the Church has. We are not tallking about buying a new car, but accepting what revelation is, and what it means.

More properly you listen and obey the church as to what to believe because the Church tells you that Christ commands it. All you relate is Catholic doctrine, and not located in scripture except by Catholic interpretation. Others don’t interepret it as you do.

I don’t allow the Bible to do that? Absurd. The Bible doesn’t do it. The Table of Contents at the front is not inspired, btw. We have a bible because the Church gave it to us. We know what is in it because the Church told us what is in it. We know that it is true because the Church told us it is true.

And you think that God gave you a brain only to obey the church?

But, they never said it. You say they did because you decide what the words really mean and which words are accurate and which are not. It is not Jesus or Paul saying this, but you.

When your mind is against the possibilities, I guess you can only conclude this. For the 9th time or so, I don’t say anything. I rely on those who are experts. If I find there reasoning rational and in line with what seems right and correct to me, I’m inclined to believe it. Like I make most decisions in life. As you do, in everything it seems but faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

your post is highly distasteful on may levels. your group a bunch of folks, theories and so on together, all your personal hatreds no doubt and claim that somehow they represent TEC. That you hate TEC with a passion is so clear that one is forced to think that it is you who are trying desperately to cleanse yourself from all that is TEC in some sad attempt to prove your RC worth. We do not “deep down know” we are wrong, we believe it passionately. I find it odd that so many new Catholics seem to have to denigrate their previous faiths to such a degree. Much as one who speaks poorly of their past relationships with spousal or less, it speaks so ever much more of the speaker than the one they so vilify.

We sincerely hope you have found peace in the RCC but alas it seems you have become a strident ranting screamer. It is not attractive. I suspect you are still far from happy.

This is classic. You get on me for trying to theorize why you guys have sold out the historic faith of the Catholic Church in favor of this new world order of anything-goes and YET you say at the end “I suspect you are still far from happy.” Thanks, Dr. Phil! I can’t get in your head but you as heck can get into mine. LOL

I like the way you and other liberals like you use the word HATE all the time to describe anything that God Himself declared sinful and out of line with the Christian life that you yourself choose to modify as wholesome. Homosexuality, gay “marriages,” women’s ordination, abortion, euthanasia, there is nothing off the table with you. And you say I’m not happy? You’re the one that came into a Catholic forum with an axe to grind. You came here to “educate” Catholics to throw away our catechism and replace it with your worldly libertarian credo. Sorry, no can do.

And I don’t need to prove my RC worth. Everyone is full of WORTH to Jesus Christ, you and me included. Homosexuals included. That doesn’t mean they have the right to persist in their sinful lifestyle and pass it off as acceptable. Love the sinner, not the sin must escape your keen intellect, Meadow.

And as far as speaking ill of former denominations, if the shoe fits, Spirit…You have a selective memory and you read what you want to read. I have spoken very highly of the liturgy I participated in as an Episcopalian. I adored the BOCP liturgy. I loved the fellowship, coffee hour, dignified music, and highly pastoral ministry of our priest (who, along with the Diocese of San Joaquin, had the common sense to get out of your denomination a couple years ago) but at a national level I despised and continue to despise its teachings and heretical theologies. Your likening it to a divorced man speaking of a former spouse is a moot point to me. Unlike your denomination, I hate divorce, like Our Lord hated divorce in scripture. I am happily married and would divorce my wife when hell freezes over. I have no concept of divorce to speak ill of a former wife…can’t relate, sorry.

I have no need to “cleanse” my TEC sinfulness. For seven years of my life I was in your ecclesiastical community (it’s not a church in fact as Benedict has accurately described it) and I have only myself to blame. I was uneducated in my faith and fell into many traps that lure Catholics away when they don’t know their catechism. It is not by my own doing that I came back but by the Holy Spirit. And I pray that He does the same for you. I went to confession and ate my crow for having left the True Church for a far lesser vehicle that only holds kernels of it. I poured my heart out to God and was given absolution. My guilt for that is gone. But I’m still sad to see some folks in that community. Hopefully there will be a day when the Episcopal Church is no more…not merely because they are not Catholic, but because they do so much damage to the Body of Christ.

I will continue to be a “stringent ranting screamer” for God, you bet. And you aren’t too shabby yourself, Spirit. You have a pretty loud bark on these boards coming in here right and left with your liberal venom. You constantly feel it incumbant upon you to ‘educate and enlighten’ us with your episcopalian rhetoric. You’re no shrinking violet and yet you fancy yourself a calm, moderate, rational voice of reason. Hilarious stuff.

I guess my question is this: if you have absolutely no openness to the Roman Catholic faith and you are going to be nothing but a disagreeable, heretically-oriented, feminist malcontent, what do you hope to prove in CAF? I’ve found the true Apostolic faith so I’m just defending the Truth of 2,000 years. You’re an innovator with an axe to grind. So be it. I’m not budging, neither are you. Do you hope to convert people, have a dialogue, what? There are much more liberal Christian forums on the net. You’d be in heaven in a few of the no-hangups lefty Christian forums I’ve perused online. Why Catholic Answers Forum? Maybe it’s you that needs to evaluate what your reasoning, goals, and point is in being in here? Cancel that, don’t answer. I don’t want to know. I’ve heard enough. I’ll just put you on ignore. I will keep you in my prayers, however, that you’ll open yourself up to the Church and the fact that Christianity is about obedience to God, not ourselves.

Time to hit that ignore button now…:thumbsup:

 

[jay29]

Great post, Daedelus! Take Oprah, Gnosticism, the Village People, the Dalai Lama, as well as neo pagans and universalists, throw them into a salad with some abortion doctors for croutons and you have the Episcopal Church.

LOL! Here is how I summit up the Episcopal Church:

It’s like a snickers bar: A solid coating of chocolate on the outside resembling a devout Catholic Mass (if you ignore the priestess) and on the inside doctrines that are soft and gooey that will rot your soul out.

 

[The_Prodigal]

To return to the original topic.

I found myself at a choir performance last night - my first time in an Episcopal church. Is it a sin to be envious of the other guy’s church? It’s a beautiful little 19th century stone building with Tiffany stained glass windows, superb woodwork, and a choir in front of the old-fashioned “high” altar. On the altar was a veil covering (I assume) a ciborium. It gave me a very odd feeling not to genuflect; this church and altar arrangement looked more catholic than many of the Catholic churches I have visited!

 

[GKC]

To return to the original topic.

I found myself at a choir performance last night - my first time in an Episcopal church. Is it a sin to be envious of the other guy’s church? It’s a beautiful little 19th century stone building with Tiffany stained glass windows, superb woodwork, and a choir in front of the old-fashioned “high” altar. On the altar was a veil covering (I assume) a ciborium. It gave me a very odd feeling not to genuflect; this church and altar arrangement looked more catholic than many of the Catholic churches I have visited!

Depending on size and position, it could have been a ciborium, or a tabernacle. Reservation of the Blessed Body is common among Anglicans.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus