Homosexual Episcopalian "Bishop" is Blasted

[GKC]

mean_owen,

“On another note, thanks to Contarini, QV, GKC, Tantum, Gottle, and others for explaining/clarifying Anglican history and positions. I’d do it myself, but such actitities detract from my primary vocation as wisenheimer.”

Speaking for myself, it’s a pleasure. History is complicated, which is why it is necessary to be deep in it.

Apologies for the typos and awkward phrasings in my last. I always post in a great hurrry. Life, like history, is complicated.

GKC

 

[Crusader]

Contarini:

oat soda,

The key point you are missing is that we don’t regard Henry VIII as our founder, because we don’t think that our political separation from Rome in the 1530s is the key moment in our history. You are welcome to disagree, but you aren’t going to get very far talking to Anglicans if you insist on characterizing our history in a way that makes absolutely no sense to us.

Also, “Anglo-Catholic” is an accepted term referring to the claim of many Anglicans to be Catholic rather than Protestant. Naturally you disagree with the claim. I find many forms of it unconvincing, myself. If you don’t want to use the term, fine. But don’t object to other people using it when it has an accepted and well-defined meaning. One of the least pleasant aspects of these boards is the tendency of some Catholics to try to bully other people into using terminology that implies the truth of Catholicism. This is just foolish. You aren’t going to convert us by railing at the way we use the language.

In Christ,

Edwin

The label of “Anglo-Catholic” certainly isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church, no matter how well-defined it was in the eyes of those who coined this inaccurate term…

 

[HagiaSophia]

Crusader:

The label of “Anglo-Catholic” certainly isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church, no matter how well-defined it was in the eyes of those who coined this inaccurate term…

Thank you for saying it aloud. I have seen some members of this forum use the term and I can never make out whether they are English Catholics or Anglicans. Drives me wild. This term is certainly not used by anyone in our church that I know of.

 

[JGC]

HagiaSophia:

Thank you for saying it aloud. I have seen some members of this forum use the term and I can never make out whether they are English Catholics or Anglicans. Drives me wild. This term is certainly not used by anyone in our church that I know of.

Hmm, you’ll get plenty of Catholics on this side of the pond refering to anglo catholics, (Scots & Welsh as well as English
). As far as almost all Catholics who would use it are concerned it would describe the anglo catholic wing of the Anglican church, distinct from broad church Anglican’s (or very Cof E) or Low church / Evangelical Anglican’s. I.E. It’s a convenient label.

The use of the the term however, as you agree, does not mean we accept anglo catholics claims to one of ‘the three branches’ of Catholicism.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Thank you to GKC, Contarini, and others who have educated us on the details of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The details are interesting but don’t change the salient point about his break with Rome. Regardless of the reasons and emotion behind his dispute with the Pope, Henry **disobeyed **and placed himself above Christ’s Church. It was that act of disobedience that set a precedent that’s still being followed today. There’s no reason the Episcopalian Church in America need fear any repurcussions in annointing an active homosexual. It’s already a fait accompli and the Lambeth Commission has made no attempt to undo it.

If you don’t think that the separation from Rome is the key moment in Anglican history, then what is? I thought that moment was the creation of that chuch.

 

[mercygate]

Crusader:

The label of “Anglo-Catholic” certainly isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church, no matter how well-defined it was in the eyes of those who coined this inaccurate term…

The Anglo-Catholic is an Anglican (nobody with even minimal knowledge of the movement is unaware of that basic fact). The term is not inaccurate because it describes a “high” doctrine of Church and Sacramaents. I urge caution in the dispensation of your scorn, my brothers and sisters. While the Anglo-Catholic movement is NOT under the umbrella of Peter, this wing of the Anglican Communion (not an official grouping but a label based on faith and practice) has given many of her best sons and daughters to Rome, starting with Newman. The Anglo-Catholic sitting in his pew, fully and in the depth of his bosom believing all the articles of the Creed, believing all the doctrines of the Catholic Church – ALL, including the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, and the general primacy of Peter – may be living a more “Catholic” life than half the people in your Catholic parish. The Church has been fragmented for a thousand years, if some people make their way to Rome via such a pathway, we should rather be grateful to that pathway than belligerent towards it.

And, God knows, the Anglo-Catholics certainly know more about Catholic liturgical tradition, and cherish it more than nine-tenths of today’s Catholic church-goers.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Crusader:

The label of “Anglo-Catholic” certainly isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church, no matter how well-defined it was in the eyes of those who coined this inaccurate term…

For Anglicans, it’s not inaccurate - this is one of the many snags met with in the dark art of ecclesiology: a label which is used by members of one Church to indicate they have something in common with another Church, will not always recommend itself to the members of both Churches involved.​

The modern “High Anglican” movement in England had plenty of stiff weather to face in the 1870s and later, before it became fully acclimatised within the Church of England; one wonders how many Catholics are aware of the sister-movement in the USA.

Anglicans can’t be expected to take their ecclesiology from Rome without further ado - they don’t claim to be Roman, but to be reformed and Catholic. If this is awkward, it probably owes a lot to the English genius for compromise: the French are far too logical for their own good; the English, by contrast, are not: we’re pragmatic - we have to be. Even when the national Church is strongly anti-Papal and anti-Popery on the one side, and all but RC on the other. They are in the same Church, so, both have somehow to be accommodated.

Which is where certain bonds of unity have helped: notably the Book of Common Prayer, and the Authorised Version of the Bible. The Church of England has been held together by its liturgy, very largely; not by highly developed doctrinal forms. A certain amount of give-and-take has been essential; as long as the “No Popery” crowd have avoided shoving too hard, & as long as the more stubborn semi-Romans have avoided pushing too hard, the Church of England has managed to avoid major crises. The “No Popery” people don’t like ecumenism any more than some Catholics do - for opposite reasons: they fear creeping “Romanisation”, and some of them fear any re-emergence of a politically powerful Papacy too.

The problem for Anglicanism now, is to find new bonds of unity. Somehow, it will have to do this without compromising its character. It has been so resilient up to now, that it would be unwise to assume it is done for. It was not split on a large scale by the rows over Biblical Criticism in the 1860s & later (AFAIK there was one schism over the issue, in Natal); and that issue was at least as explosive as the issues of female ordination or homosexual ordination.

As to that issue of Biblical Criticism: if the whole thing had not been sat on so firmly by Pius IX and some of his successors, it might have been dealt with by today. Sometimes, a centralised authority, because it is authoritative, can act in a way that stops problems being adequately resolved, so that they continue to bother the Church like a grumbling appendix. The problems for Anglicans are possibly the reverse of having too much authority decisively exercised. ##

 

[tcay584]

Gottle of Geer,
I agree that there is nothing catholic about rejecting personal or political liberty…however, you must agree that a person’s liberty is constrained by God’s law. We can’t all just do whatever feels good at the moment. I’m curious as to your viewpoint on precisely how the Catholic church is systematically depriving people of their freedom. Freedom to do what? What exactly do you want to do that the Church is forbidding you to do?
I respectfully disagree with you as to whether or not Christianity is ultimately based on rules. The ten commandments are rules given by God. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The problem with most of us is that without the rules, we tend to stray from the straight and narrow. We remake God’s rules into what we would like them to be so we can justify our own behaviours. Jesus knew that about us, that’s why we have rules.
A last thought on personal freedom…was it not in the garden when Jesus himself said not my will but yours be done? He was completely free to do his own will, but still subjected himself to the Father’s will. Maybe if more of us subjected ourselves to the Father’s will, the world would be a better place.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tcay584:

Gottle of Geer,
I agree that there is nothing catholic about rejecting personal or political liberty…however, you must agree that a person’s liberty is constrained by God’s law.

That’s taken for granted ​

We can’t all just do whatever feels good at the moment. I’m curious as to your viewpoint on precisely how the Catholic church is systematically depriving people of their freedom. Freedom to do what? What exactly do you want to do that the Church is forbidding you to do?

I wasn’t saying that - but I do think that the CC has a tendency towards authoritarianism; possibly as a reaction to the licence of various non-Catholic groups; as well as because the CC is a world-wide communion with a highly-centralised structure. This is good for building up the Church as a Christian army - but less good, if one thinks of the Church, less as an army, than as a communion bound together by charity.​

The problem is, that there are several “models” of the Church: the military model is one; the Church as communion is another; Church as Body of Christ is another; Church as Holy People of God is another: Church as sheepfold is another. And there are others - see Lumen Gentium 1. And at any one time, a particular model tends to loom larger in the Church’s life than another. And after Trent, the military model became usual - and one of the dangers with it, is that an emphasis on discipline and order, needed as those things are, can become an over-emphasis, so that things not easily regimented and controlled can suffer: things such as the awareness of the Church as indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Equally, all models have their dangers: but the military model seems to be more popular at present, making over-emplhasis on others less of a danger. ##

I respectfully disagree with you as to whether or not Christianity is ultimately based on rules. The ten commandments are rules given by God. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The problem with most of us is that without the rules, we tend to stray from the straight and narrow. We remake God’s rules into what we would like them to be so we can justify our own behaviours. Jesus knew that about us, that’s why we have rules.

But the Life of the Trinity is not rule-based - and that is the Life in which the Christian shares. Rules are therefore secondary - one expression of God’s Love among many; and that Love is what is primary. It is because it is “poured into our hearts” that we need rules to help us live by it - rules are there to serve and direct it; it is not there for the sake of rules. That is why I said “ultimately”. ​

A last thought on personal freedom…was it not in the garden when Jesus himself said not my will but yours be done? He was completely free to do his own will, but still subjected himself to the Father’s will. Maybe if more of us subjected ourselves to the Father’s will, the world would be a better place.

Of course. that is surely right. The problems come when frail men, no matter where placed in the Church, mistake their own wills for God’s - this is an inescapable problem, ISTM. Because those who are commanded can be wilful and selfish - but, so can those who command. Only Christ does not command selfishly or disobey. Because He Loves perfectly- which the members of His Church, being still sinners, do not. “We are unprofitable servants” - whatever our place in the Church.​

 

[GKC]

StJeanneDArc:

Thank you to GKC, Contarini, and others who have educated us on the details of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The details are interesting but don’t change the salient point about his break with Rome. Regardless of the reasons and emotion behind his dispute with the Pope, Henry **disobeyed **and placed himself above Christ’s Church. It was that act of disobedience that set a precedent that’s still being followed today. There’s no reason the Episcopalian Church in America need fear any repurcussions in annointing an active homosexual. It’s already a fait accompli and the Lambeth Commission has made no attempt to undo it.

If you don’t think that the separation from Rome is the key moment in Anglican history, then what is? I thought that moment was the creation of that chuch.

Greetings, StJeanneDarc,

You are very welcome. It’s always better to know history, than otherwise. Helps keep one from waving about cardboard cutouts.

Anglicans don’t agree that lack of communion with Rome places one above (or outside of) Christ’s Church. Nor do the Orthodox.

The issue of Henry’s annulment /dynastic quest was only the last straw in a process that had been ongoing in England for several hundred years, of limiting the influence of the Holy See. Clement (who fervently wished that Catherine would take the veil, Henry would die, anything, to let the problem pass from him) finally pushed a rash and impetous monarch to the final break, by functioning in a real-politick mode, not as such issues were routinely handled, but in order to placate Charles V. The (potential) split had long been coming. See, for example, the Statues of Praemunire (1353/1393) and the Statues of Provisors (1351/1390), all aimed at decreasing papal power in England.

And you are quite right that Lambeth has done nothing to substantialy address VGR. There’s almost nothing they can do, except not invite ECUSA to the next decennial Lambeth Conference. It is a burden that we live with, as part of the divided Church. And please remember that I myself am not in communion with Canterbury. Contarini is. Different sorts of Anglicans.

As to the key moment in the Anglican Church, that would probably be between the Incarnation and Pentecost. That’s when Anglicans mark the creation of the Church. You, know, just like you.

GKC

 

[GKC]

mercygate:

The Anglo-Catholic is an Anglican (nobody with even minimal knowledge of the movement is unaware of that basic fact). The term is not inaccurate because it describes a “high” doctrine of Church and Sacramaents. I urge caution in the dispensation of your scorn, my brothers and sisters. While the Anglo-Catholic movement is NOT under the umbrella of Peter, this wing of the Anglican Communion (not an official grouping but a label based on faith and practice) has given many of her best sons and daughters to Rome, starting with Newman. The Anglo-Catholic sitting in his pew, fully and in the depth of his bosom believing all the articles of the Creed, believing all the doctrines of the Catholic Church – ALL, including the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, and the general primacy of Peter – may be living a more “Catholic” life than half the people in your Catholic parish. The Church has been fragmented for a thousand years, if some people make their way to Rome via such a pathway, we should rather be grateful to that pathway than belligerent towards it.

And, God knows, the Anglo-Catholics certainly know more about Catholic liturgical tradition, and cherish it more than nine-tenths of today’s Catholic church-goers.

Thank you , mercygate. That’s a fair description(as far as one can tell) of many Anglo-Catholics. Some would shade a few doctrines, but still, a good description.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus.

 

[GKC]

GoG,

As always, you save me a lot of typing.

You refer, in passing, to Colenso, Bishop of Natal. IIRC, he was excommunicated, followed by much legal wrangling, and many considered him still the rightful bishop of the province, even after his successor was in place. I believe he was eventually reinstated to his see. What an Anglican situation.

GKC

 

[oat_soda]

The key point you are missing is that we don’t regard Henry VIII as our founder, because we don’t think that our political separation from Rome in the 1530s is the key moment in our history. You are welcome to disagree, but you aren’t going to get very far talking to Anglicans if you insist on characterizing our history in a way that makes absolutely no sense to us.

WHAT!!! you’re out of touch with reality if you believe that henry the 8th is not the key moment in anglican history. you’re forced into this fantasy because you don’t want to acknowledge the immorality of henry the 8th forced england to split from rome. “anglo-catholics” are in an impossible position and have to believe that england was never under the authority of rome but was forced into it at some time in the past. this reasoning is analogous to mormon belief that jews voyaged to the americas 4000 years ago. but there is no proof. they just like you live in a fantasy.

please, for our edification, if this is true, show us the evidence. i don’t think you’ll be able to find any.

 

[GKC]

oat soda:

WHAT!!! you’re out of touch with reality if you believe that henry the 8th is not the key moment in anglican history. you’re forced into this fantasy because you don’t want to acknowledge the immorality of henry the 8th forced england to split from rome. “anglo-catholics” are in an impossible position and have to believe that england was never under the authority of rome but was forced into it at some time in the past. this reasoning is analogous to mormon belief that jews voyaged to the americas 4000 years ago. but there is no proof. they just like you live in a fantasy.

please, for our edification, if this is true, show us the evidence. i don’t think you’ll be able to find any.

O-S,

No, there’s a group of Anglicans who hold that, but they are not typically Anglo-Catholics, per se. That’s the group that holds to the Celtic Church theory.

Sorry, Contarini. I will be quiet.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

oat soda,

You completely missed my point. I said absolutely nothing about whether or not the Church of England was under the authority of the Pope before the Reformation. Clearly it was, although Catholics often underestimate the extent to which various medieval monarchs (not just English) exercised control over the Church in their dominions.

That, however, was not my point. The point is that for Anglicans whether or not we are in communion with Rome is not the most important issue. You’re assuming that the communion with Rome which we don’t have is as important to us as the communion with Rome that you have is for you. Which makes no sense, if you think about it. To us, the break with Rome was one important moment in our history, but only one. Also, the political break under Henry was in many respects not as important as the liturgical changes under Edward, confirmed under Elizabeth (of course, the one paved the way for the other). Nor was the break made by Henry the final one–had Elizabeth not reaffirmed it our history would have been very different. None of this is to deny that Henry’s decision is extremely important. But we do not trace our origin to Henry. Institutionally, the best point to which to trace our origin is the establishment of the See of Canterbury (by Pope Gregory I) in 597. You can bluster all you like against that, but sheer assertion is not going to carry any weight. There have been Archbishops of Canterbury in direct succession ever since 597. That is the center of the Ecclesia Anglicana, which was once subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome and has been independent for nearly 500 years. Whether that independence is a good thing is dubious, but it isn’t the defining fact of our existence.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Crusader:

The label of “Anglo-Catholic” certainly isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church, no matter how well-defined it was in the eyes of those who coined this inaccurate term…

Tell that to Fr. Aidan Nichols and a host of other Catholic theologians and historians, who use the term without any qualms. It simply means “Anglicans who consider themselves Catholics rather than Protestants.” It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You guys are way too touchy about terminology, as if simply using a name for something made it true. I can call churches stemming from of the 19th-century “Restoration” movement “the Christian churches and Churches of Christ” without implying that they are uniquely Christian. I can call you guys “the Catholic Church” without giving up claims to catholicity. On some occasions both these terms can be confusing. “Anglo-Catholic,” however, is not.

Hagia Sophia, if you have really seen the term used for English Catholics, let me know where. I’ve never seen it so used. No one except a few people on this board objects to it. You’re simply making a fuss about nothing.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

:

St. Jeanne d’Arc wrote:

:Thank you to GKC, Contarini, and others who have educated us on the details of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The details are interesting but don’t change the salient point about his break with Rome.:

Well, that remains to be seen.

: Regardless of the reasons and emotion behind his dispute with the Pope, Henry **disobeyed **and placed himself above Christ’s Church.:

That begs the question. We know you guys see it that way. But not being part of your communion, we don’t see it that way. Simply ranting about our “disobedience” will accomplish nothing. If you want to convince us, you have to understand how we see ourselves and deal with us on that level. If you don’t want to do that, simply let us be. But the sort of boorish bombast that’s been thrown around on this thread only annoys us and makes us feel justified in our separation from Rome. Be careful–I’d very much like to have an excuse for not becoming Catholic right now. If you help give me one, you’re doing something pretty serious.

: It was that act of disobedience that set a precedent that’s still being followed today.:

Essentially, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s late in the day for the Anglican Communion to try to turn itself into an international church with authoritative structures, when our break with Rome largely consisted of denying the validity of such structures.

:If you don’t think that the separation from Rome is the key moment in Anglican history, then what is?:

The formation of the See of Canterbury in 597.

: I thought that moment was the creation of that chuch.:

You were wrong. It was the moment when we became independent of Rome.

Don’t think an analogy with the United States. Think of an analogy with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The reason that’s the better analogy is that like Virginia, we had essentially the same structures and institutions that we have today long before we separated from the “mother country.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:

But the sort of boorish bombast that’s been thrown around on this thread only annoys us and makes us feel justified in our separation from Rome. Be careful–I’d very much like to have an excuse for not becoming Catholic right now. If you help give me one, you’re doing something pretty serious.

Edwin: I apologize if my repeating the joke above was in any way hurtful to you. I was reared a Southern Baptist. I made my way into Roman Catholicism through the Episcopal Church (5 years as a communicant, was confirmed by the Right Rev. Maurice Benitez of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, one of the old Bishops who are now in a bit of trouble for offering Episcopal oversight in Ohio and California without the local ordinary’s permission). There is much I miss and would love it if my current diocese had an Anglican use parish. Anyway, in some of these threads, we don’t always speak to each other in a way which would be pleasing to Our Lord. If you’re thinking about swimming the Tiber, lots of people will wade out quite a distance to help you in. God Bless!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[GKC]

:

St. Jeanne d’Arc wrote:

:Thank you to GKC, Contarini, and others who have educated us on the details of Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The details are interesting but don’t change the salient point about his break with Rome.:

Well, that remains to be seen.

: Regardless of the reasons and emotion behind his dispute with the Pope, Henry **disobeyed **and placed himself above Christ’s Church.:

That begs the question. We know you guys see it that way. But not being part of your communion, we don’t see it that way. Simply ranting about our “disobedience” will accomplish nothing. If you want to convince us, you have to understand how we see ourselves and deal with us on that level. If you don’t want to do that, simply let us be. But the sort of boorish bombast that’s been thrown around on this thread only annoys us and makes us feel justified in our separation from Rome. Be careful–I’d very much like to have an excuse for not becoming Catholic right now. If you help give me one, you’re doing something pretty serious.

: It was that act of disobedience that set a precedent that’s still being followed today.:

Essentially, I’m inclined to agree with you. It’s late in the day for the Anglican Communion to try to turn itself into an international church with authoritative structures, when our break with Rome largely consisted of denying the validity of such structures.

:If you don’t think that the separation from Rome is the key moment in Anglican history, then what is?:

The formation of the See of Canterbury in 597.

: I thought that moment was the creation of that chuch.:

You were wrong. It was the moment when we became independent of Rome.

Don’t think an analogy with the United States. Think of an analogy with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The reason that’s the better analogy is that like Virginia, we had essentially the same structures and institutions that we have today long before we separated from the “mother country.”

In Christ,

Edwin

Canterbury was a good spot, yes, 597, a good date. Not to forget, though, that the Church in England was organised by dioceses long before Augustine’s mission from Gregory. 3 bishops from England at Arles in 314, unknown number at Rimini, 359. There other points, but I’m not a Glastonbury type.

Resuming being quiet.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

JKirk,

I wasn’t offended by your post, but thanks for the apology!

I have a somewhat similar story. I come from a nondenominational Wesleyan/holiness background, was baptized at 18 by a Southern Baptist pastor (though I never joined an SBC congregation, making my baptism irregular by their standards), and have been considering conversion to Catholicism at least since 1995. In 1998 I decided that I wasn’t ready to take the jump but needed to belong somewhere, and joined a local ECUSA parish, which was a marvelous blend of Anglo-Catholic and evangelical. I no longer belong to that parish, having moved to New Jersey. And ECUSA is looking less and less tenable as a permanent home. But on the other hand I’ve married a United Methodist deacon, and converting to Catholicism has therefore become a lot more complicated. My wife is not anti-Catholic–in fact she’s about as Catholic as you can get and be Methodist–but ecclesiologically she has no problems remaining in a Protestant denomination, and she’s very committed to women’s ordination (understandably). ECUSA and UMC go together quite well–we can attend both churches and receive communion together–but becoming Catholic would make things much more difficult. Given that my most Protestant point is my ecclesiology (while I believe in papal primacy, I’m not convinced that it’s the decisive point determining the validity of the Church, and I have problems with Catholic perfectionism regarding unity when you are so non-perfectionist on other points) it isn’t obvious to me that I should privilege my Catholic leanings over what may be a legitimate call to remain Protestant and work for the recovery of the Tradition from this end. At this point that would probably mean becoming Methodist, which I’m reluctant to do given that it’s a move away from Catholicism in many respects. So I’m rather stuck right now, and am going to pray seriously over the issue for the next few months and seek counsel from wise and holy people of my acquaintance (both Catholic and Protestant).

In Christ,

Edwin