Episcopalian Church moving towards Unitarian Universalism?

[Michael1978]

You believe the Catholic Church. Others believe differently or are still searching. That doesn’t at all mean that truth is relative and that there is no ultimate truth. In merely means that in any case, the truth is we can’t truly know or believe we know, without faith. Walking by faith not by sight. And time will tell who is right and who is not, if anyone fully is.

So, is there one absolute truth or not?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Can’t happen, Christ promised HIS Church would NEVER teach error. Many have tried that in the 2,000 years of Catholic History and never could, not even with “help” from within. They may do harm to their own faith and that of others, but the Church will continue on in the TRUTH till the end of time. If disobedient Catholics can’t destroy the Church from within, no one from the “outside” will ever be able to either. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, God Bless, Memaw

I hope you are right Memaw. I have only been Catholic a mere 7-8 years and I have met many Catholics in my current parish who definitely Catholic in name only. If abortion, homosexuality and female priests were approved tomorrow by the Vatican they would be dancing for joy. I left the Episcopal church for the Catholic church and naively believed all Catholics were in agreement with Church teaching and we would all be on the same page. It did not take long for my eyes to be opened! I am glad we have the magesterium and the Pope which have authority for the One Holy and Apostolic Church and I pray the Holy Spirit will always be guiding the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

So, is there one absolute truth or not?

Yes I believe so.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I certainly distinguish the two, and I suspect that the older “Continuing Anglicans” would not want to be confused with the ACNA.

Yes, I believe that some bodies within the ACNA laying hands on female ministers continues to be a sticking point between the Continuing Anglicans and the ACNA.

Unfortunately the Continuing Anglicans are (imo) a few years from winding down and disappearing from the landscape of American Anglicanism. Many are what would consider themselves “Anglo-Catholic” but their practice is more focussed on worshipping with the 1928 BCP rather than bringing the Gospel to those outside the church. As such, most consist of congregations of 10-20 aging members.

Interestingly enough, several new Orders of Consecrated Life, the Anglican Benedictines and Order of St. Martin deTours (lay order) are 2 which have formed or are growing within the ACNA. It witnesses to the new birth of committed Christian Living within Anglicanism in the U.S.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I believe that some bodies within the ACNA laying hands on female ministers continues to be a sticking point between the Continuing Anglicans and the ACNA.

Unfortunately the Continuing Anglicans are (imo) a few years from winding down and disappearing from the landscape of American Anglicanism. Many are what would consider themselves “Anglo-Catholic” but their practice is more focussed on worshipping with the 1928 BCP rather than bringing the Gospel to those outside the church. As such, most consist of congregations of 10-20 aging members.

Interestingly enough, several new Orders of Consecrated Life, the Anglican Benedictines and Order of St. Martin deTours (lay order) are 2 which have formed or are growing within the ACNA. It witnesses to the new birth of committed Christian Living within Anglicanism in the U.S.

Which is one reason why I, an aging Anglo-Catholic Continuuer, with the 28 Book in hand, wish the ACNA well.

One reason I do so from afar is found in your para 1.

 

[Faithdancer]

A generic, informal term for (mainly) those Anglicans (mostly in this country, thus mostly Episcopalians) who began to break from the Episcopal Church in, roughly, 1978 or so, over various trends, things, and oddities that TEC was beginning to do. And continues to do.

I belong to a jurisdiction that is is Continuing Anglican.

Here’s an intro.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement

GKC et. al, I was using the term “Continuing Anglican” in the very broad sense you just described. And though I attend an ACNA congregation I’m also discerning postulancy in an Orthodox Anglican Church religious order.

I think there is continuing hope that all Anglicans who reject the extreme social liberalism of the TEC as well as the lack of sound gospel teaching and preaching will eventually find enough common ground to become more cohesive, at least loosely. There is a GAFCON coming up, no?

 

[Faithdancer]

Which is one reason why I, an aging Anglo-Catholic Continuuer, with the 28 Book in hand, wish the ACNA well.

One reason I do so from afar is found in your para 1.

And God bless you for that, Brother! I love the '28. Interestingly enough, ACNA is putting out its new prayer book, and there is some return to the language of the '28. My understanding is that up to now it has been up to each ACNA diocese to decide whether to use the '28, the '79, or even the 1662. I do hope that freedom continues.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, I believe that some bodies within the ACNA laying hands on female ministers continues to be a sticking point between the Continuing Anglicans and the ACNA.

Unfortunately the Continuing Anglicans are (imo) a few years from winding down and disappearing from the landscape of American Anglicanism. Many are what would consider themselves “Anglo-Catholic” but their practice is more focussed on worshipping with the 1928 BCP rather than bringing the Gospel to those outside the church. As such, most consist of congregations of 10-20 aging members.

Interestingly enough, several new Orders of Consecrated Life, the Anglican Benedictines and Order of St. Martin deTours (lay order) are 2 which have formed or are growing within the ACNA. It witnesses to the new birth of committed Christian Living within Anglicanism in the U.S.

Are you familiar with the Brotherhood of St. Andrew, Soldier? My pastor was just telling me about them. Sounds somewhat like an Anglican version of the Knights of Columbus, without the insurance or the progressive initiations. Not knocking the K of C by any means, they are in general a staunch bastion against rampant “progressivism” in the RC church.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, I believe that some bodies within the ACNA laying hands on female ministers continues to be a sticking point between the Continuing Anglicans and the ACNA.
.

Good point, I witnessed the ordination of a female priest just last weekend. I’m in a curious position as I don’t believe there is scriptural support for female priests yet I’m in an ACNA diocese that allows it (some do, some don’t).

 

[GKC]

And God bless you for that, Brother! I love the '28. Interestingly enough, ACNA is putting out its new prayer book, and there is some return to the language of the '28. My understanding is that up to now it has been up to each ACNA diocese to decide whether to use the '28, the '79, or even the 1662. I do hope that freedom continues.

It would be very Anglican to do so, though if I was confronted with the’ 79, I’d take a hike.

Under our previous rector, '28 was the standard, supplemented from the Anglican Missal, with an occasional special service from the 1662, or even the 1549, on historical occasions.

No 1552.

 

[GKC]

GKC et. al, I was using the term “Continuing Anglican” in the very broad sense you just described. And though I attend an ACNA congregation I’m also discerning postulancy in an Orthodox Anglican Church religious order.

I think there is continuing hope that all Anglicans who reject the extreme social liberalism of the TEC as well as the lack of sound gospel teaching and preaching will eventually find enough common ground to become more cohesive, at least loosely. There is a GAFCON coming up, no?

Some form of unity is certainly desirable. How one maneuvers around a few doctrinal points is a daunting prospect, though. Even so, I wish the ACNA well, and also watch with admiration the redoubtable Lawrence, in his diocese, thrusting back the onslaughts from TEC.

 

[commenter]

Which is one reason why I, an aging Anglo-Catholic Continuuer, with the 28 Book in hand, wish the ACNA well.

.

Your outlook (as evidenced by your posts) isn’t aging, it’s applying Tradition and unbiased accurate information to the world of 2015. Only those who are faithful to Scripture and Tradition have the potential to bring about change in the current year - in any current year. Those who worship (or condemn) every current trend don’t have the potential to facilitate change.

 

[Michael1978]

Yes I believe so.

Then who or what is the arbiter of said truth?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Are you familiar with the Brotherhood of St. Andrew, Soldier? My pastor was just telling me about them. Sounds somewhat like an Anglican version of the Knights of Columbus, without the insurance or the progressive initiations. Not knocking the K of C by any means, they are in general a staunch bastion against rampant “progressivism” in the RC church.

There was a chapter in the church where I grew up, and I was visiting an ACNA church recently which had a chapter. Looking at the website it seems to have the foundations of a good organization down (prayer, study and evangelism).

brotherhoodofstandrew.org/about.php

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Good point, I witnessed the ordination of a female priest just last weekend. I’m in a curious position as I don’t believe there is scriptural support for female priests yet I’m in an ACNA diocese that allows it (some do, some don’t).

Yes, that is a major point of contention within the ACNA. There is supposedly a report coming out (3 years in the making so far) which will decide the official teaching, and ultimately the future of the ACNA.

I do not have great hope that they will remain scriptural / historical.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Then who or what is the arbiter of said truth?

I believe God. But I just don’t believe anyone on this earth can even come close to believing and saying they truly know said truth without faith. Now I know many are not comfortable with such an answer and in living in such a way but I’m at peace with it. And may peace be with you in your walk. God bless!

 

[commenter]

I believe God. But I just don’t believe anyone on this earth can even come close to believing and saying they truly know said truth without faith. Now I know many are not comfortable with such an answer and in living in such a way but I’m at peace with it. And may peace be with you in your walk. God bless!

I bless you in your walk, and appreciate your blessing in ours.

(I was going to quote to you from my new pamphlet, “20 Methods to Liberate Intransigent Skeptics from the Folly of Their Illogical Disbelief” to show you the error of ways, but I can’t find it at the moment; so just have to return your blessing.)

(Method #5 involved boiling oil, which is hard to administer over the Internet)

 

[Sy_Noe]

I bless you in your walk, and appreciate your blessing in ours.

(I was going to quote to you from my new pamphlet, “20 Methods to Liberate Intransigent Skeptics from the Folly of Their Illogical Disbelief” to show you the error of ways, but I can’t find it at the moment; so just have to return your blessing.)

(Method #5 involved boiling oil, which is hard to administer over the Internet)

Thank you for your blessings as we together, each along our faith paths, seek and walk toward the ultimate truth. Blessings to all. :grouphug:

 

[Memaw]

Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are borrowed from the political arena, and are misleading when applied to churches. There are Episcopalians (and Catholics, Protestants) who are orthodox in Christian faith. Then there are others who are not.

That second group started the dishonest trend of labeling everything a liberal or conservative position. But protecting the life of unborn children isn’t “conservative”, it is humane. Abandoning the sanctity of marriage isn’t liberal, it’s abandoning the sanctity of marriage. Claiming you are a Christian minister, then teaching trusting people doctrines from the secular media instead of the gospel, isn’t liberal; it’s “bait and switch”.

AMEN. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Contarini]

Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are borrowed from the political arena, and are misleading when applied to churches. There are Episcopalians (and Catholics, Protestants) who are orthodox in Christian faith. Then there are others who are not.

I wasn’t going to go down this particular rabbit trail on this thread, but since Memaw just cited this post favorably and thus brought it back to attention:

The claim just isn’t true. It isn’t misleading at all. Any community has “liberal” and “conservative” elements. In fact, the terms are much more straightforward in Christianity than in American politics.

For one thing, as a Catholic you can’t really believe that any Episcopalians or other Protestants are orthodox. Not fully orthodox If you want to say that some of us are more orthodox than others, then you are allowing that orthodoxy has degrees (which it clearly does).

Furthermore, the debate between conservatives and liberals is a debate over what is and is not orthodox. The two sets of terms therefore can’t be collapsed into each other without hopeless confusion.

To be “liberal” is to have relatively loose standards of orthodoxy compared to someone who is more “conservative.”

That second group started the dishonest trend of labeling everything a liberal or conservative position.

No, what is dishonest is claiming that there is no real debate over what orthodoxy is, and no real disagreements within the boundaries of orthodoxy, so that “liberal” and “conservative” are meaningless terms.

But protecting the life of unborn children isn’t “conservative”, it is humane.

I agree that in a secular political sense, the prolife position should not simply be labeled conservative. The justices in Roe v. Wade appealed (though selectively and not entirely accurately) to venerable legal precedent. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, opposition to abortion was a “progressive” position along with opposition to prostitution, alcohol use, slavery, etc.

However, in terms of the Christian tradition, opposition to abortion is “conservative” because it is the traditional, historic Christian position.

Abandoning the sanctity of marriage isn’t liberal, it’s abandoning the sanctity of marriage.

And of course that’s loaded language

Claiming that you best preserve the sanctity of marriage by redefining it as a consensual, permanent union between two adults, regardless of their respective genders, is a liberal position. It claims to maintain the basic principle while redefining what are allegedly more superficial aspects.

Claiming you are a Christian minister, then teaching trusting people doctrines from the secular media instead of the gospel, isn’t liberal; it’s “bait and switch”.

But of course this is a loaded, biased description of what liberal Christians are doing.

Edwin