Episcopalian today?

[eightydeuce82]

They’ve worked for nearly five centuries. Just because some people out there perverted it’s tenets does not make the truth of the message any less. The Holy Spirit reveals things to people according to their ability and yes, we stand by Biblical Canon. Just because Luther tossed out an uninspired Apocrypha so we could get to the meat of the Scripture does not mean that the Gospel or the Law was thrown out. All 27 books of the New Testament remain intact. As far as learning goes, Protestants have a funny habit of producing top- notch universities and have done since the age of Luther, Calvin and Henry VIII. Mocking us and belittling us here will not make our message shrink, nor will it make us disappear. Our people have died for the Cross of Christ, we’ve historically shown ourselves to be more inclusive as to those whom we call fellow Christians and while we do pray for unity, that unity isn’t restricted to a hierarchy. If Rome’s pissed that she’s lost the better part of Northern and Western Europe ( with its income) then maybe she shouldn’t have abused the power she had while they were still within her orbit.

Pervert the tenants? Wow so who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong in a system that has no authority and considers everyone fallible.

Ill say this like I said it before if we follow the idea that Luther put forward and intellectually look it.

Here is what im getting from you all.

Christ established a invisible Church, made its prime source of authority a book that wasn’t readily available for the masses until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, and where the bibles were available prior to the printing press the illiteracy rates we at or below 10%. Makes perfect sense.

So Christ’s authority was completely dependent on the invention of the printing press. I wonder if the printing press is in the bible?

That’s what I get from all of this.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Luther didn’t bring the focus back on Christ he effectively enabled main line heresy an turned it into an unstoppable movement. So unstoppable as I type this another denomination is forming in a mini reformation. As I type we are also gaining ground in all the places you just mentioned Especially Africa. There is a reason why Protestantism doesn’t do well in countries where ancient languages are spoken and read! The bible when read in Greek or Hebrew doesn’t provide the options that protestants have when reading a verse in English or modern Languages. Its simply not possible to come to the conclusions many protestants have come to in those languages. So you can say its growing but so are we and we have been for 2000 years. Anyone steeped in history who is intellectually honest ends up Catholic. Unfortunately the age of intellectual honesty is about dead.

A very interesting statement.There are as many Catholics who go over to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Anglican and Lutheran faiths as there are Protestants who go over to Rome. I was a Catholic myself for nearly twenty years, before careful investigation and prayer led me to the doors of the church I belong to now. The Scriptures work. We give God alone the credit for everything. If a group of Catholics can say that doing that is a bad and heretical thing, then I am proud to be named a heretic!
As least my brand of heresy is consistent, with the churches I go to teaching exactly the same things. The Confessions, as I see every day, are exactly as relevant now as they were in 1580. As far as intellectual honesty goes, I’m not God. Only He can sit in judgment over the soul of another. I am decently versed in history, yes and I present my views with passion. If I need to be polemical, fair enough. So, now that the RCC can no longer use the power of the state to murder the bodies of those who share my views or who are very close to them, she’ll try another tack. Good. Keep proving Luther’s point.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I once saw a Disciples of Christ pastor saying the very same thing about the One most important of all Who unites us. Amen. Well said.

Christ breaks down walls. (Ephesians 2:14)

Very true and thank you, Sy Noe. :tiphat:

 

[GKC]

The beginnings of the Church of England date back to at least the 2nd century when Christianity was first brought to England and to St Augustine’s mission in 597. During the Reformation, papal authority was repudiated.

episcopalchurch.org/page/history-episcopal-church

Incidentally, though Catholics disagree, TEC maintains it has apostolic succession. I’ve been told by an Episcopal priest it’s why persons confirmed in the Roman Church like myself need not be re-confirmed in TEC but can merely be received into their church.

Anglicans who concern themselves about the idea of apostolic succession (and that’s most of them, I’d wager) do not affirm Apostolicae Curae, no. But that would not be the reason a RC confirmed by a valid RC bishop would not be re-confirmed (a concept that is itself not possible) but would be merely received into the Anglican Church. It’s because Anglicanism recognizes that the RCC possesses apostolic succession, and a person confirmed there is validly confirmed already. Same would be true for a priest coming into Anglicanism from the RCC. He would be received in his orders.

And the Church in England possibly dates back to the 2nd century, but it is murky history.

There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

But the point of origin is fuzzy.

GKC

 

[commenter]

… yes, we stand by Biblical Canon. Just because Luther tossed out an uninspired Apocrypha so we could get to the meat of the Scripture does not mean that the Gospel or the Law was thrown out. All 27 books of the New Testament remain intact.

You hope it stays “intact”.
Some liberal Protestant churches are now adding books to the New Testament, for use in worship and religious education. Their justification is that since the 27 book canon was produced by the Magisterium, whose authority they are finally moving fully away from, they can choose a better canon now. Gospels such as Thomas and Mary and other books more fully address the needs of 2015, in their eyes, and are inserted in some New Testaments. This movement will spread.

Mocking us and belittling us here will not make our message shrink, nor will it make us disappear.

I am ashamed at Catholics who mock and belittle you, here or anywhere. Including me.

Our people have died for the Cross of Christ…

Yes they have! I hope to meet and honor them someday. I know where they are now, and if I’m lucky they might consider me as included when they use the phrase “our people”. I hope I come to the same place.

 

[Contarini]

You hope it stays “intact”.
Some liberal Protestant churches are now adding books to the New Testament, for use in worship and religious education. Their justification is that since the 27 book canon was produced by the Magisterium, whose authority they are finally moving fully away from, they can choose a better canon now. Gospels such as Thomas and Mary and other books more fully address the needs of 2015, in their eyes, and are inserted in some New Testaments.

Can you name specifically which New Testaments these would be, and where they are used in a formal liturgical manner?

I’m sure there are places where this is happening, but it is not the norm in any of the mainline denominations.

This movement will spread.

Maybe. But unless you have prophetic gifts, you don’t know that. Predictions about religious history have generally proved wrong.

It seems to me that on these sorts of issues the current trends in mainline denominations (certainly in the two I know best–TEC and the UMC) are in a conservative direction. (The UMC is also moving conservative on social issues–TEC of course is going in the opposite direction there.) As in the Catholic Church, the clergy who push this sort of thing end to be older. The younger clergy care about creeds and orthodoxy, even if on social issues many of them hold views that most folks here would consider radically unorthodox. (I’m not defending or criticizing this pattern, just noting it.)

Edwin

 

[frobert]

Yea lets just give up this following JESUS stuff and the bible adherence cause let’s just let God be the judge! I can’t belive this was just said here.

Your posts show little understanding but are a fine example of judging.

 

[KKM]

Anglicans who concern themselves about the idea of apostolic succession (and that’s most of them, I’d wager) do not affirm Apostolicae Curae, no. But that would not be the reason a RC confirmed by a valid RC bishop would not be re-confirmed (a concept that is itself not possible) but would be merely received into the Anglican Church. It’s because Anglicanism recognizes that the RCC possesses apostolic succession, and a person confirmed there is validly confirmed already. Same would be true for a priest coming into Anglicanism from the RCC. He would be received in his orders.

And the Church in England possibly dates back to the 2nd century, but it is murky history.

There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

But the point of origin is fuzzy.

GKC

Are you saying that Episcopalians have Apostolic Succession? I’m sorry, I was having trouble following what you were saying.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Your posts show little understanding but are a fine example of judging.

Sorry you feel that way the truth hurts sometimes…of course you feeling doesn’t change the infinite fracturing of Christianity the leaders of Protestantism created when supposedly righting the church. The evidence of somehow discovering the “right way” as opposed to the Catholic and historic way is great with the tens of thousand denominations who are now changing the very Christian tenants that have always been held from the beginning. But hey with no one to answer too who cares and with out a way to validate anything it doesn’t matter. I say lets just denounce the trinity and start a Christian church since the holy spirit has lead me to that end! Wait that’s not right but im a protestant and fallible so I have no way to prove you are wrong and no authority. Your holy spirit must have been mistaken…mine on the other hand is much much better. Does this circle ever get old?

 

[GKC]

Are you saying that Episcopalians have Apostolic Succession? I’m sorry, I was having trouble following what you were saying.

No, I am saying that Episcopalians recognize that the RCC has apostolic succession. Hence, a RC confirmation is a sacramentally valid confirmation (assuming all factors are valid, as one cam) and needs no further attention, if a confirmed RC comes into Anglicanism

And I’m also saying that Anglicans (of whom Episcopalians are a subset) reject the judgement of Apostolicae Curae, and thus assert that they have apostolic succession. Nothing surprising in that.

And, though I did not say it, I myself say that Anglicanism has apostolic succession, as far as the judgement in Apostolicae Curae goes, though they are swiftly losing it, to the black hole of ordaining/consecrating invalid subjects, for the sacrament of orders.

And, also not stated above, I’m Anglican, with a long time hobby of the lengthy, sad story of the history, politics, personalities and theology wrapped up in that document Leo XII signed in 1896.

GKC

 

[eightydeuce82]

No, I am saying that Episcopalians recognize that the RCC has apostolic succession. Hence, a RC confirmation is a sacramentally valid confirmation (assuming all factors are valid, as one cam) and needs no further attention, if a confirmed RC comes into Anglicanism

And I’m also saying that Anglicans (of whom Episcopalians are a subset) reject the judgement of Apostolicae Curae, and thus assert that they have apostolic succession. Nothing surprising in that.

And, though I did not say it, I myself say that Anglicanism has apostolic succession, as far as the judgement in Apostolicae Curae goes, though they are swiftly losing it, to the black hole of ordaining/consecrating invalid subjects, for the sacrament of orders.

And, also not stated above, I’m Anglican, with a long time hobby of the lengthy, sad story of the history, politics, personalities and theology wrapped up in that document Leo XII signed in 1896.

GKC

So who set those standards they are losing?

 

[Thorolfr]

Can you name specifically which New Testaments these would be, and where they are used in a formal liturgical manner?

I’m sure there are places where this is happening, but it is not the norm in any of the mainline denominations.

I agree. In my ELCA congregation, we read every Sunday from the Revised Common Lectionary which according to Wikipedia was originally based on the 1969 Ordo Lectionum Missae, a three-year lectionary produced by the Roman Catholic Church. I seriously doubt that we are going to change this and start reading from the Gospel of Thomas or any other books outside of the canonical books anytime soon.

 

[eightydeuce82]

I agree. In my ELCA congregation, we read every Sunday from the Revised Common Lectionary which according to Wikipedia was originally based on the 1969 Ordo Lectionum Missae, a three-year lectionary produced by the Roman Catholic Church. I seriously doubt that we are going to change this and start reading from the Gospel of Thomas or any other books outside of the canonical books anytime soon.

But you have no way of knowing and its completely possible there lies the problem. Its not an impossibility that your “church” flopps completely over on you.

 

[GKC]

So who set those standards they are losing?

Can you rephrase that?

GKC

 

[7_Sorrows]

The beginnings of the Church of England date back to at least the 2nd century when Christianity was first brought to England and to St Augustine’s mission in 597. During the Reformation, papal authority was repudiated.

episcopalchurch.org/page/history-episcopal-church

Incidentally, though Catholics disagree, TEC maintains it has apostolic succession. I’ve been told by an Episcopal priest it’s why persons confirmed in the Roman Church like myself need not be re-confirmed in TEC but can merely be received into their church.

Be careful which preposition you use. The Church of England began in the 1500’s. The Church IN England began in the 2nd or 3rd century. England was Catholic longer than it has been protestant.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Can you rephrase that?

GKC

You said And, though I did not say it, I myself say that Anglicanism has apostolic succession, as far as the judgement in Apostolicae Curae goes, though they are swiftly losing it, to the black hole of ordaining/consecrating invalid subjects, for the sacrament of orders.

You say that they have a redefined (not historic) kind of apostolic succession…remember that means they have a tie to the apostles literally not because someone declares it because they teach Christian doctrine. You say they are losing it? What are they losing?

Who set up the standards from which they operate and hold them selves to?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Be careful which preposition you use. The Church of England began in the 1500’s. The Church IN England began in the 2nd or 3rd century. England was Catholic longer than it has been protestant.

Ah that’s similar to a protestant using the Early church Fathers and you politely point out they were Roman Catholic. The end!

 

[frobert]

Sorry you feel that way the truth hurts sometimes…of course you feeling doesn’t change the infinite fracturing of Christianity the leaders of Protestantism created when supposedly righting the church. The evidence of somehow discovering the “right way” as opposed to the Catholic and historic way is great with the tens of thousand denominations who are now changing the very Christian tenants that have always been held from the beginning. But hey with no one to answer too who cares and with out a way to validate anything it doesn’t matter. I say lets just denounce the trinity and start a Christian church since the holy spirit has lead me to that end! Wait that’s not right but im a protestant and fallible so I have no way to prove you are wrong and no authority. Your holy spirit must have been mistaken…mine on the other hand is much much better. Does this circle ever get old?

I am not hurt by your lack of understanding or your belief of what the truth is, actually, I find most of the posts amusing. In my original post I stated my opinion of why most people do not feel a need to confront church going gay couples with their beliefs. You have a belief which is fine I have no objections if you have a compulsion to judge others who have different beliefs.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Ah that’s similar to a protestant using the Early church Fathers and you politely point out they were Roman Catholic. The end!

 

[GKC]

You said And, though I did not say it, I myself say that Anglicanism has apostolic succession, as far as the judgement in Apostolicae Curae goes, though they are swiftly losing it, to the black hole of ordaining/consecrating invalid subjects, for the sacrament of orders.

You say that they have a redefined (not historic) kind of apostolic succession…remember that means they have a tie to the apostles literally not because someone declares it because they teach Christian doctrine. You say they are losing it? What are they losing?

Who set up the standards from which they operate and hold them selves to?

They are losing their apostolic succession, by attrition, through the practice of attempting to ordain invalid subjects. Eventually, this will render Apostolicae Curae a prescient document, by around 100 years or so.

Not all Anglicans attempt to ordain invalid subjects. Those Anglicans, to the extent that all sacramental factors are valid, in the transmission of Orders, retain apostolic succession. Those Anglican jurisdictions who attempt to ordain invalid subjects made that decision themselves.