Episcopalian today?

[eightydeuce82]

So is that what happens to most Catholics who commit what are considered to be sins, to divorced and remarried Catholics and gay Catholics, etc.? Are they all told not to come to Mass until they change their ways?

No one not even gay people or anyone for that matter is told not to come to mass. They are barred from receiving the Eucharist because of that funny little verse that Paul mentions in the bible.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, I wasn’t assuming they aren’t aware, I imagine that’s the whole point of the Episcopal church right now is to give them somewhere to go - or maybe to just get more members. Since LBGT folks are encourage to be extremely open about their situation, pressured, in fact, by the people who are activists for them, the Episcopal church seems to be responding… but if they are going to make that their mission, they might end up losing a lot more members. I personally, feel apathetic to the issue. Its not for me to ponder what their fate shall be: I don’t wish ill on them OR feel the need to go champion for them. I won’t apologize for not wanting to stay in a church (Episcopalian) who feels that it is in their power to call judgment for or against the LGBT community. My only thought on it is that thankfully, I am not one to judge that, nor is any other human on this planet.

The Episcopal Church’s position is not primarily motivated by a desire to get more members, although some may hold to the fantasy that if churches become more “inclusive” they will grow numerically. (It also isn’t true that conservative churches grow–many conservative churches decline as well. The most basic factor seems to be whether the church stands for something that offers a contrast to what is available elsewhere. For some churches that’s innovative worship or “extra-curricular” services such as those offered by many megachurches. For some it’s powerful preaching. For others it’s a creative and thoughtful reappropriation of tradition. For others it’s a stand for social justice. Of course, growth should not be the primary motivation for a church’s actions. Stand by your principles and growth may well come. Chase growth for its own sake and it won’t–or at least it won’t last and won’t produce solid good.)

The Episcopal Church’s position is motivated by an understanding of the Gospel as a radical invitation to all persons to share in the unconditional love of Christ. While the reality of sin is not denied, sin is seen as that which corrupts and destroys God’s creatures, and many Episcopalians have trouble seeing how loving, consensual relationships between members of the same sex fit the bill.

I am not defending this position here, just explaining it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No one not even gay people or anyone for that matter is told not to come to mass. They are barred from receiving the Eucharist because of that funny little verse that Paul mentions in the bible.

That’s a bit misleading, isn’t it? Priests don’t stand at the communion rail and ask people a checklist of sins before giving them communion. The only way a priest would know, normally, that a person has committed a grave sin would be in confession, and priests aren’t allowed to act on the basis of that knowledge.

If a person’s sins are publicly known and thus cause “scandal” (i.e., serve as an example to others, particularly if they are not reproved by the Church and thus people think the Church is OK with their behavior), then they may as I understand it be turned away from Communion. But isn’t this in fact extremely rare?

I understand that people in unrepentant mortal sin are asked not to receive Communion, but except in rare cases of “public sin” there isn’t any way for the Church to enforce this, as far as I know.

Edwin

 

[Sy_Noe]

So is that what happens to most Catholics who commit what are considered to be sins, to divorced and remarried Catholics and gay Catholics, etc.? Are they all told not to come to Mass until they change their ways?

Nope. I’m a Catholic according to the Church, non practicing to be clear but a Catholic. And we sinners are told we commit more sin by not attending Mass every wk.

 

[eightydeuce82]

The Episcopal Church’s position is not primarily motivated by a desire to get more members, although some may hold to the fantasy that if churches become more “inclusive” they will grow numerically. (It also isn’t true that conservative churches grow–many conservative churches decline as well. The most basic factor seems to be whether the church stands for something that offers a contrast to what is available elsewhere. For some churches that’s innovative worship or “extra-curricular” services such as those offered by many megachurches. For some it’s powerful preaching. For others it’s a creative and thoughtful reappropriation of tradition. For others it’s a stand for social justice. Of course, growth should not be the primary motivation for a church’s actions. Stand by your principles and growth may well come. Chase growth for its own sake and it won’t–or at least it won’t last and won’t produce solid good.)

The Episcopal Church’s position is motivated by an understanding of the Gospel as a radical invitation to all persons to share in the unconditional love of Christ. While the reality of sin is not denied, sin is seen as that which corrupts and destroys God’s creatures, and many Episcopalians have trouble seeing how loving, consensual relationships between members of the same sex fit the bill.

I am not defending this position here, just explaining it.

Edwin

So does that radical calling to understand the gospel really mean we will accept you as long as you agree with your particular pastors stance on the gospel? If not you con go find someone who thinks something different…and keep going until you find that pastor that you jive with completely? Does it mean accepting and even participating in sinful behavior? I mean if we are calling people to Christ are we also supposed to promote and exploit their sin? All the while patting them on the back saying don’t worry son my interpretation says you will be just fine?

 

[eightydeuce82]

That’s a bit misleading, isn’t it? Priests don’t stand at the communion rail and ask people a checklist of sins before giving them communion. The only way a priest would know, normally, that a person has committed a grave sin would be in confession, and priests aren’t allowed to act on the basis of that knowledge.

If a person’s sins are publicly known and thus cause “scandal” (i.e., serve as an example to others, particularly if they are not reproved by the Church and thus people think the Church is OK with their behavior), then they may as I understand it be turned away from Communion. But isn’t this in fact extremely rare?

I understand that people in unrepentant mortal sin are asked not to receive Communion, but except in rare cases of “public sin” there isn’t any way for the Church to enforce this, as far as I know.

Edwin

That’s a whole different matter. If you’re Catholic you know its Sacrilege to receive in sin. Public or private. A mortal sin is a mortal sin in private and in public. No a priest doesn’t have sin radar lol! BUT if your willing to condemn yourself feel free to receive.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Exactly! That is the MAIN Issue now isn’t it! Same thing we have been saying for the last 490 years. Of course we know that there is only ONE truth now don’t we.

It’s just none of us truly know what it is for sure without some faith. You believe you know because you have faith in the CC. But there are different faiths and we walk by faith not by sight. That’s just a fact of life on this earth.

 

[Contarini]

So does that radical calling to understand the gospel really mean we will accept you as long as you agree with your particular pastors stance on the gospel?

As I said above, not in my experience, no. The Episcopal clergy of whose pastoral ministry I have had regular experience (i.e., I’ve regularly attended churches where they were the pastors) have either been conservative on this issue themselves or have been generous and welcoming to me in spite of our differences. My own experience leads me to believe that most Episcopal clergy really mean this “all-inclusive” business and really are willing to apply it to conservatives. But of course I’m sure there are clergy who behave otherwise.

I don’t know why you keep coming back with this question when it’s already been answered. You seem determined to believe badly of Episcopalians no matter what people with actual experience of the contemporary Episcopal Church tell you.

Does it mean accepting and even participating in sinful behavior? I mean if we are calling people to Christ are we also supposed to promote and exploit their sin? All the while patting them on the back saying don’t worry son my interpretation says you will be just fine?

Depends on what you mean by “accepting.” I’m sure that if I ran up to the altar rail and started denouncing a gay person who was receiving Communion, I’d be told that this was inappropriate and might be asked not to come back if I persisted in such disruptive behavior. But I could mention in respectful and appropriate ways that I thought gay sex was sinful–I certainly did that in the parish I attended in NJ, at the height of the controversy. I am less sure about the word “sinful” now, though I still think it’s disordered in some way. I did get in a brief argument on Facebook with a gay member of my wife’s congregation the other day about the Indiana law (not of my seeking–I posted on my timeline an article by a pro-gay-marriage person saying that people who oppose gay marriage shouldn’t be driven out of their livelihoods and that gay marriage wasn’t equivalent to racial discrimination, and this guy responded by saying that setting oppressed people against each other–i.e., making a distinction between race and sexual orientation–was “chilling and heartless”). I have yet to see how this will affect his future attitude to me.

Edwin

 

[eightydeuce82]

If you adhere to the bible as you’re sole rule of faith and practice Gay marriage isn’t possible. Affirming homosexual behavior isn’t possible.

Of course this is subjective to every single protestants/evangelical/Anglicans etc etc etc…personal interpretation of the bible so belief may vary

If you adhere to an authority (Rome) and use tradition and scripture it is also exactly as stated above for the bible Christian.

What this boils down to is obedience. Do you accept the teachings of the bible or do you only accept some of them?

Do you accept the Bible, Sacred Tradition, or do you only accept some of it?

It sounds to me if you don’t accept it ALL or think somehow that it being 2015 its any different than it being 200BC or 33AD then you don’t accept being a follower of Christ.

Its not the Churches making these determinations. Its not the Conservative pastors making these determinations. Its God. At its root it seems many have a bone to pick with God not the churches.

 

[Contarini]

That’s a whole different matter. If you’re Catholic you know its Sacrilege to receive in sin. Public or private. A mortal sin is a mortal sin in private and in public. No a priest doesn’t have sin radar lol! BUT if your willing to condemn yourself feel free to receive.

I know that’s what you meant. That’s why I said “misleading” and not “wrong.” Given the nature of some of the questions, it was clear that some folks in this discussion don’t understand the distinction between being physically turned away and being taught that you ought not to receive. I wanted to make that clear so that people didn’t think the Catholic Church had bouncers who interrogated people on their sinfulness and kicked them out if they didn’t answer correctly (as you know, people readily believe strange and scary things about Catholicism).

Edwin

 

[eightydeuce82]

As I said above, not in my experience, no. The Episcopal clergy of whose pastoral ministry I have had regular experience (i.e., I’ve regularly attended churches where they were the pastors) have either been conservative on this issue themselves or have been generous and welcoming to me in spite of our differences. My own experience leads me to believe that most Episcopal clergy really mean this “all-inclusive” business and really are willing to apply it to conservatives. But of course I’m sure there are clergy who behave otherwise.

I don’t know why you keep coming back with this question when it’s already been answered. You seem determined to believe badly of Episcopalians no matter what people with actual experience of the contemporary Episcopal Church tell you.

Depends on what you mean by “accepting.” I’m sure that if I ran up to the altar rail and started denouncing a gay person who was receiving Communion, I’d be told that this was inappropriate and might be asked not to come back if I persisted in such disruptive behavior. But I could mention in respectful and appropriate ways that I thought gay sex was sinful–I certainly did that in the parish I attended in NJ, at the height of the controversy. I am less sure about the word “sinful” now, though I still think it’s disordered in some way. I did get in a brief argument on Facebook with a gay member of my wife’s congregation the other day about the Indiana law (not of my seeking–I posted on my timeline an article by a pro-gay-marriage person saying that people who oppose gay marriage shouldn’t be driven out of their livelihoods and that gay marriage wasn’t equivalent to racial discrimination, and this guy responded by saying that setting oppressed people against each other–i.e., making a distinction between race and sexual orientation–was “chilling and heartless”). I have yet to see how this will affect his future attitude to me.

Edwin

BTW I know plenty of Gay Catholics living a chaste life.

 

[Contarini]

If you adhere to the bible as you’re sole rule of faith and practice Gay marriage isn’t possible. Affirming homosexual behavior isn’t possible.

Of course this is subjective to every single protestants/evangelical/Anglicans etc etc etc…personal interpretation of the bible so belief may vary

If you adhere to an authority (Rome) and use tradition and scripture it is also exactly as stated above for the bible Christian.

What this boils down to is obedience. Do you accept the teachings of the bible or do you only accept some of them?

Do you accept the Bible, Sacred Tradition, or do you only accept some of it?

It sounds to me if you don’t accept it ALL or think somehow that it being 2015 its any different than it being 200BC or 33AD then you don’t accept being a follower of Christ.

Its not the Churches making these determinations. Its not the Conservative pastors making these determinations. Its God. At its root it seems many have a bone to pick with God not the churches.

So you believe in the radical Protestant version of sola scriptura, in which Scripture is perfectly self-explanatory?

Why would a Catholic believe that?

And if you don’t believe that, then your post makes no sense.

It’s not about “having a bone to pick with God” but about having a different understanding of what God wants.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

BTW I know plenty of Gay Catholics living a chaste life.

Oh indeed. And some Protestants do too, although Catholics generally do a better job of encouraging chastity rather than trying to force gay people to “change their orientation” (I think that the different understandings of sin may have something to do with it).

Edwin

 

[eightydeuce82]

Oh indeed. And some Protestants do too, although Catholics generally do a better job of encouraging chastity rather than trying to force gay people to “change their orientation” (I think that the different understandings of sin may have something to do with it).

Edwin

Ill certainly agree with that (chastity part).

No I don’t believe in the heretical false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But my target audience here wasn’t Catholics. What I’m saying is if the bible, tradition, natural law for us Catholics say no then the answer is no and you can be certain that its final and from God. One of those things about being catholic that’s a blessing. We are not going to capitulate to the world and change because we care to much that you go to heaven than if your feelings are hurt.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No one not even gay people or anyone for that matter is told not to come to mass. They are barred from receiving the Eucharist because of that funny little verse that Paul mentions in the bible.

But see even “that funny little verse” has different interpretations among Christians as does the verses in Jn 6 including the one where Jesus said he turns no one away. Maybe why I’m told not to receive in the CC but I am more than welcomed to receive in TEC and others.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Oh indeed. And some Protestants do too, although Catholics generally do a better job of encouraging chastity rather than trying to force gay people to “change their orientation” (I think that the different understandings of sin may have something to do with it).

Edwin

Selectively picking and choosing bible verses to form your faith and life and not taking it in its totality is very dangerous. So is having millions of different interpretations and literally nothing or no one to find out who is right is the biggest danger for Christians today. consequently its the number one reason most protestant pastors become Catholic (that and reading the early church fathers) Following this idea we would have to say Mormons or Jehovah witnesses or even those guys in Waco were equally as credible as any protestant denomination. If we are leaving the truths of Christ up to every Joe Shmo out there we are doomed.

 

[eightydeuce82]

But see even “that funny little verse” has different interpretations among Christians as does the verses in Jn 6 including the one where Jesus said he turns no one away. Maybe why I’m told not to receive in the CC but I am more than welcomed to receive in TEC and others.

Well lets just go with consistency then…To cut through that funny little verse lets go back and see what the first Christians believed from 33AD till oh about 1517. Seems pretty understandable to me how they all regarded the Eucharist…even in churches outside of Rome who maintain apostolic authority.

 

[eightydeuce82]

But see even “that funny little verse” has different interpretations among Christians as does the verses in Jn 6 including the one where Jesus said he turns no one away. Maybe why I’m told not to receive in the CC but I am more than welcomed to receive in TEC and others.

You can receive bread and wine all you want in any other denomination but if you want to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ you can receive with us.

 

[Thorolfr]

Depends on what you mean by “accepting.” I’m sure that if I ran up to the altar rail and started denouncing a gay person who was receiving Communion, I’d be told that this was inappropriate and might be asked not to come back if I persisted in such disruptive behavior. But I could mention in respectful and appropriate ways that I thought gay sex was sinful–I certainly did that in the parish I attended in NJ, at the height of the controversy. I am less sure about the word “sinful” now, though I still think it’s disordered in some way.

Shortly after my partner and I started attending our Lutheran church (ELCA), another more conservative member came up to us and told us that he considered gay sex to be sinful. But after several years of worshiping together, talking to each other over soup suppers during Lent, and attending other church activities together, he has actually gotten to be quite friendly towards us and we have been friendly towards him. I’m not sure that he has changed his views about homosexuality (he hasn’t raised the issue again), but I’m glad that we are getting along and can both attend the same church.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Shortly after my partner and I started attending our Lutheran church (ELCA), another more conservative member came up to us and told us that he considered gay sex to be sinful. But after several years of worshiping together, talking to each other over soup suppers during Lent, and attending other church activities together, he has actually gotten to be quite friendly towards us and we have been friendly towards him. I’m not sure that he has changed his views about homosexuality (he hasn’t raised the issue again), but I’m glad that we are getting along and can both attend the same church.

Well that’s certainly a good thing that you are getting along and you should be accepted where ever you are but how do you reconcile your life choices with the bible and 2000 years of Christian faith and practice?