Episcopalian vs. Catholic

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure what you’re saying with “reliable.” Are you saying GKC can always be relied upon to whine like “the others,” or are you saying he’s a reliable, good, solid poster? It’s a great compliment to GKC (that he does indeed deserve) that he is “reliable,” but I’d like to point out that he is just as disgusted and vocal about it as any of the rest of Anglicans who find the pansexual, neo-pagan, heterodox christology of TEC to be perverse and disturbing. And everyone has the right to complain just as many non-Catholics have the right to complain about things that go on within Catholicism and without. I notice a trend with liberals that anyone of a conservative theology or political view should always “quit whining” or “quit complaining” and yet when liberals voice their displeasure and disgust or frustration it somehow is “lucid,” a “civil concern” and always palatable?? Come on, Anode?

I must say that these ‘Episcopal’ threads keep going on and on, as the needle is stuck in the groove, with the various reliable posters , GKC, and others, bitterly complaining and whining about events as they unfold. Time to move on, folks, move on, or stay and quit complaining.

 

[nhylan]

I’m Episcopalian, I consider myself slightly left of moderate but even I think some of the stuff that some congregations do is a little out there. The involvement of the pagan or whatever is really really disturbing to me. I support gay marriage (or at least their right to do it) and I like woman preists the pagan stuff just is… well wierd to me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just a question, respectfully…do you think the early councils, the Early Church Fathers, and the first Christians in the NT period would approve of gay marriage and/or female ordination? You’re correct, the pagan “stuff is just weird.” I concur!

I’m Episcopalian, I consider myself slightly left of moderate but even I think some of the stuff that some congregations do is a little out there. The involvement of the pagan or whatever is really really disturbing to me. I support gay marriage (or at least their right to do it) and I like woman preists the pagan stuff just is… well wierd to me.

 

[nhylan]

Just a question, respectfully…do you think the early councils, the Early Church Fathers, and the first Christians in the NT period would approve of gay marriage and/or female ordination? You’re correct, the pagan “stuff is just weird.” I concur!

I think that’s a fair question. My view on it is this: No, they wouldn’t approve. That doesn’t mean they would be right it just means for their time period that was definitely the prevalent veiw. However that view is largely incompatible if one wants to live and work and experience the world as it is today.(in my opinion) I know many gay couples who love each other like feel as closely as my fiance and I do. They go to church with us, who am I to judge them? Let God decide their fate. I respect the Early Church Fathers but I do not follow their teachings to a “T” either, I consider it much like we don’t read good portions of the bible as absolute fact. Hope that clears up my feelings for you.

 

[anode]

I think that’s a fair question. My view on it is this: No, they wouldn’t approve. That doesn’t mean they would be right it just means for their time period that was definitely the prevalent veiw. However that view is largely incompatible if one wants to live and work and experience the world as it is today.(in my opinion) I know many gay couples who love each other like feel as closely as my fiance and I do. They go to church with us, who am I to judge them? Let God decide their fate. I respect the Early Church Fathers but I do not follow their teachings to a “T” either, I consider it much like we don’t read good portions of the bible as absolute fact. Hope that clears up my feelings for you.

The early church fathers would have stoned gays, as everyone else would have. Women were one up from slaves, except, of course in the early church where some seem to have been priests and bishops.

My point is that I know that GKC and others, who have posted hundreds of time on Anglican issues, keep going on and on.* I know *that they have walked. But little is new now, tho’, in the AC and I doubt if the AC is going to go back on some of its recent decisions. I understand that the ACNA–is that the one?–may approve women’s ordination–or do I have it wrong? I mean, what is there to keep posting about? Other complainers whine about Obama, about health care, about abortion–Obama signed an anti-abortion bill today, not too happy about it, but a deal is a deal–but there’s always something new and substantial to whine about–new nuclear treaty cutting deployable weapons by 25%, taking over and expanding Pell grants–more money to more students–new regs on Wall Street, to prevent another Great Recession–I mean, there’s always something to complain about–but in the AC there’s not much new, except individual court cases or a small church selling to a Muslim community–I wouldn’t describe Muslims as *de facto *anti-Christian, by the way.

Move on. You’ve already moved out.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think that’s a fair question. My view on it is this: No, they wouldn’t approve. That doesn’t mean they would be right it just means for their time period that was definitely the prevalent veiw. However that view is largely incompatible if one wants to live and work and experience the world as it is today.(in my opinion) I know many gay couples who love each other like feel as closely as my fiance and I do. They go to church with us, who am I to judge them? Let God decide their fate. I respect the Early Church Fathers but I do not follow their teachings to a “T” either, I consider it much like we don’t read good portions of the bible as absolute fact. Hope that clears up my feelings for you.

How does the square the views of the church father’s that are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit; like St. Paul for example?

 

[Palaeologos]

The early church fathers would have stoned gays, as everyone else would have. Women were one up from slaves, except, of course in the early church where some seem to have been priests and bishops.

I would like to see references to passages in the Fathers that advocate stoning for sodomy. The fact is that this practice, while not exactly socially approved, was not particularly condemned in late antiquity. A fair amount of ridicule attended the role of the person who was penetrated in such a transaction, but it was fairly common for slaveowners to take attractive boys as catamites. Christian (and earlier Stoic & Epicurean) condemnation of the practice was an ethical novelty.

As far as women being one up from slaves–I think Hypatia might have disagreed, as would have many Roman women. The reality is much more complicated than you paint it, and I suspect you’re confusing post-Roman (Teutono-Roman) social mores with those of late Roman antiquity.

Women priests and bishops? Women were certainly abbesses, and abbesses held an ecclesiastical rank equivalent to that of a bishop, but they had no sacramental authority. The evidence of female priests and bishops before the 20th century is no more trustworthy than the evidence James Boswell adduces for same-sex marriage in the monastic tradition. In both cases, it’s a matter of seeing something one desperately wants to see in a set of inconclusive data.

 

[nhylan]

I woul ask why does having female preists need to be rooted in whatever history you are looking at? We can create new things, ideas, and practices as long as love and adoration of God and Christ is the most important thing. You could argue that that is a slippery slope but i would then say that to me, slippery slopes make being human wonderful. People make wrong choices all the time. Just because something disagrees with early church leaders doesn’t mean that’s one of those wrong choices.

 

[GKC]

You don’t know much about the subject, me included, do you? As noted below, I don’t have a dog in this fight and never have had. But I know a dog when I see one.

Winning in these court cases is somewhat like the cases in the 19th-20th century cases involving slavery, or Jim Crow laws. Eventually, things changed.

Me, I’ll post as, and on what subjects I find interesting. You, no doubt, will do the same. Life’s like that.

GKC

I must say that it all sounds very conspiratorial-- – a ‘dubious canon’, ‘passed in the dead of night’–too bad it wasn’t challenged then and there.

The courts will sort it out. IF the ‘dubious’ canon has the force of law, TEC will win in various of these court cases, as it has already. But believe me, it isn’t going to go quietly into that good night, and if I were Schori, I wouldn’t either.

I must say that these ‘Episcopal’ threads keep going on and on, as the needle is stuck in the groove, with the various reliable posters , GKC, and others, bitterly complaining and whining about events as they unfold. Time to move on, folks, move on, or stay and quit complaining.

 

[anode]

I would like to see references to passages in the Fathers that advocate stoning for sodomy. The fact is that this practice, while not exactly socially approved, was not particularly condemned in late antiquity. A fair amount of ridicule attended the role of the person who was penetrated in such a transaction, but it was fairly common for slaveowners to take attractive boys as catamites. Christian (and earlier Stoic & Epicurean) condemnation of the practice was an ethical novelty.

As far as women being one up from slaves–I think Hypatia might have disagreed, as would have many Roman women. The reality is much more complicated than you paint it, and I suspect you’re confusing post-Roman (Teutono-Roman) social mores with those of late Roman antiquity.

Women priests and bishops? Women were certainly abbesses, and abbesses held an ecclesiastical rank equivalent to that of a bishop, but they had no sacramental authority. The evidence of female priests and bishops before the 20th century is no more trustworthy than the evidence James Boswell adduces for same-sex marriage in the monastic tradition. In both cases, it’s a matter of seeing something one desperately wants to see in a set of inconclusive data.

Most women weren’t Roman women.

 

[anode]

I woul ask why does having female preists need to be rooted in whatever history you are looking at? We can create new things, ideas, and practices as long as love and adoration of God and Christ is the most important thing. You could argue that that is a slippery slope but i would then say that to me, slippery slopes make being human wonderful. People make wrong choices all the time. Just because something disagrees with early church leaders doesn’t mean that’s one of those wrong choices.

Here, here.

or,

Hear, hear!

 

[GKC]

The early church fathers would have stoned gays, as everyone else would have. Women were one up from slaves, except, of course in the early church where some seem to have been priests and bishops.

My point is that I know that GKC and others, who have posted hundreds of time on Anglican issues, keep going on and on.* I know *that they have walked. But little is new now, tho’, in the AC and I doubt if the AC is going to go back on some of its recent decisions. I understand that the ACNA–is that the one?–may approve women’s ordination–or do I have it wrong? I mean, what is there to keep posting about? Other complainers whine about Obama, about health care, about abortion–Obama signed an anti-abortion bill today, not too happy about it, but a deal is a deal–but there’s always something new and substantial to whine about–new nuclear treaty cutting deployable weapons by 25%, taking over and expanding Pell grants–more money to more students–new regs on Wall Street, to prevent another Great Recession–I mean, there’s always something to complain about–but in the AC there’s not much new, except individual court cases or a small church selling to a Muslim community–I wouldn’t describe Muslims as *de facto *anti-Christian, by the way.

Move on. You’ve already moved out.

Again, you are incorrect. I was never in, to move out. And do, please, note. I post as I choose. How about you?

GKC

 

[GKC]

You can certainly invent what new forms and manner of worship, as you wish. That is the essence of protestantism. But you cannot do so, and affirm the practice of the Catholic faith, as to the requirements for a valid clergy, hence valid sacraments. Not, to be sure, that these points need necessarily not concern you. But they concern some folks.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

I woul ask why does having female preists need to be rooted in whatever history you are looking at? We can create new things, ideas, and practices as long as love and adoration of God and Christ is the most important thing. You could argue that that is a slippery slope but i would then say that to me, slippery slopes make being human wonderful. People make wrong choices all the time. Just because something disagrees with early church leaders doesn’t mean that’s one of those wrong choices.

 

[nhylan]

You can certainly invent what new forms and manner of worship, as you wish. That is the essence of protestantism. But you cannot do so, and affirm the practice of the Catholic faith, as to the requirements for a valid clergy, hence valid sacraments. Not, to be sure, that these points need necessarily not concern you. But they concern some folks.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

The entry above was part of a response about how I square my beliefs about gay marriage and woman priests not about the RCCs rejection of them. Gurney inquired, I answered, and never said I was Catholic or had any interest in converting.

Its this basic idea, ultimately of reletavism vs. Absolutism. Why must everything be absolute? I would say it is hard an desired to balance the two.

 

[GKC]

The entry above was part of a response about how I square my beliefs about gay marriage and woman priests not about the RCCs rejection of them. Gurney inquired, I answered, and never said I was Catholic or had any interest in converting.

Its this basic idea, ultimately of reletavism vs. Absolutism. Why must everything be absolute? I would say it is hard an desired to balance the two.

I never said you were Catholic, either. I assumed you were not. And said that certainly you could devise such methods of worship as you see fit, and change them as you see fitter, ad seriatum. But that is not what a Catholic will do. Which is why, generically, one cannot say that all Christians may innovate so freely, to suit their personal or societal whims.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Weren’t you a continuing Anglican on day one? You were never Episcopalian to be able to bail, right?

Again, you are incorrect. I was never in, to move out. And do, please, note. I post as I choose. How about you?

GKC

 

[GKC]

Weren’t you a continuing Anglican on day one? You were never Episcopalian to be able to bail, right?

Correct. I had attended an Episcopal church in the late 60s, as a Baptist, to find out what was what, based on my readings (Chesterton, Lewis, et al). My sister was interested in an inquirer’s class. But suddenly there appeared these green pamphlets, in the pews. The trial liturgy, that led to the 79 book. I was hep. And out of there, in 1967, never an Episcopalian. I discerned the future. *Lex orandi, lex credendi *.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[anode]

It’s that your preaching to the choir–your own small choir, along with others preaching to their own small choirs. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a free country.

 

[GKC]

It’s that your preaching to the choir–your own small choir, along with others preaching to their own small choirs. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a free country.

So I’ve noticed. Spent 20 years in an organization dedicated to keeping it that way.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…yep. Status quo…what’s wrong with that?

So I’ve noticed. Spent 20 years in an organization dedicated to keeping it that way.

GKC