NEW YORK: Lesbian [Episcopal ] Priest Nominee on List to be Next Bishop of New York

[7_Sorrows]

We should be praying for the Episcopalian situation, not making fun of them. Yes, their “church” ecclesial body, has been making some unfortunate decisions. Yes, their church is dwindling. Many of their members are, no doubt, suffering.

If we want to attract more of them to the fold, pointing fingers at them and laughing isn’t the way to have converts. Surely, Christ would want us to show love and consern for them, be there to council disenchanted members.

Oh, and thinking that just because Episcopalians even should become Catholic due to feeling angry or discouraged these types of situations is wrong in itself. A convert to Catholicsim would need to accept quite a few doctrines alien to them, totally unrelated to the issue of women priests, gay priests or the other recent problems that assail them.

Indeed, I would wish we would absorb many, many Epsicopalians and Anglicans, but only for the right reasons. They need to seek the Church because they are called not because they are running from a sinking ship.

great post!!

 

[1holycatholic]

why do you say that they are not a church in the proper sense? they are not a Catholic church, but they give to charities, pray, sing hymns, take care of the poor and sick,
have Holy Communion.

The don’t have Holy Communion as they don’t have valid Holy Orders.

[CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)
…
FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
…

 

[ringil]

why do you say that they are not a church in the proper sense? they are not a Catholic church, but they give to charities, pray, sing hymns, take care of the poor and sick,
have Holy Communion.

Yes, according to Doctrine only the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, and maybe the Polish National Church are “churches”. Others are ecclesial bodies.

It’s really beside the point though regarding the rude and self-righteous behavior on this thread.

Regarding posters here:

“To those with only hammers; everything looks like a nail”

 

[7_Sorrows]

The don’t have Holy Communion as they don’t have valid Holy Orders.

yes, they can have Holy Communion. many protestant churches have communion.
they don’t believe as the Catholic church that it is the Real Presence.

maybe you should spend more time praying for the Episcopal church rather than criticizing everything about it.

it’s good to be Catholic, but we cannot criticize all the other protestant churches.
perhaps we don’t agree with how they want to interpret the gospel, but they are still trying to be Christians. and following the teachings of Jesus in charity and faith.

 

[CMatt25]

Who cares?

This conserns the Episcopal church. What does disparaging this woman or her Church do to further the True Faith?

It seems posters are just being mean.

It’s unbecomming and unnecessary.

:clapping:

 

[CMatt25]

The don’t have Holy Communion as they don’t have valid Holy Orders.

According to your faith beliefs they don’t.

 

[louis91766]

Yes, according to Doctrine only the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, and maybe the Polish National Church are “churches”. Others are ecclesial bodies.

What about the Old Catholic Churches and also the breakaway Catholics who reject Vatican II?
A while back there was a statement from the Vatican on the invalidity of the Anglican orders and that seemed to settle the issue once and for all. But later on,
there was a question as to whether or not some of the Anglicans and Episcopalians might have valid orders because of the fact that there had been instances where Old Catholic bishops had participated in some of the ordinations. However, now with the introduction of women “priests”, obviously any even remote possibility to recognise the validity of Anglican orders becomes more and more dubious.

 

[CMatt25]

yes, they can have Holy Communion. many protestant churches have communion.
they don’t believe as the Catholic church that it is the Real Presence.

maybe you should spend more time praying for the Episcopal church rather than criticizing everything about it.

it’s good to be Catholic, but we cannot criticize all the other protestant churches.
perhaps we don’t agree with how they want to interpret the gospel, but they are still trying to be Christians. and following the teachings of Jesus in charity and faith.

:clapping: And I know you already know this “7”. But actually some do even believe it is the Real Presence.

I once had an Episcopal priest explain to me that Episcopalians believe Christ is truly present in body and blood. He said Episcopalians respond “Amen” when the Communion minister says, “The Body of Christ, the Bread of Heaven”, the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Salvation." He explained they just don’t attempt to say how or when in the sense Catholics do with the doctrine of transubstantiation. He said they instead concentrate on living the mystery that He is.

And others might believe there is at least a spiritual Real Presence.

God bless and peace.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

According to your faith beliefs they don’t.

Either the Catholic Church is true or it isn’t. If it is, then the Anglican “Communion” is invalid. It is just bread and wine. Even if the Catholic Church is delusional doesn’t mean that the Anglican communion has valid communion.

There is only one truth on anything. It isn’t subjective or subject to interpretation. Just because we believe something to be true doesn’t make it so.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What about the Old Catholic Churches and also the breakaway Catholics who reject Vatican II?
A while back there was a statement from the Vatican on the invalidity of the Anglican orders and that seemed to settle the issue once and for all. But later on,
there was a question as to whether or not some of the Anglicans and Episcopalians might have valid orders because of the fact that there had been instances where Old Catholic bishops had participated in some of the ordinations. However, now with the introduction of women “priests”, obviously any even remote possibility to recognise the validity of Anglican orders becomes more and more dubious.

Sedevacantism causes schism, but does not invalidate Holy Orders, so their priests are still able to confect the Eucharist. It is the same as the Orthodox Church. As long as the rest of the corpus of their theology remains orthodox, everything is okay. Part of this is the understanding of what happens at the consecration. Old Catholic, Orthodox, Polish Catholic, all believe that the bread is tranformed into the actual body of Christ and the blood is actually transformed into the blood. Anglicans believe in a form of consubstantiation, in which the bread is still present, but Christ “becomes one with it”. If the priest believes that he is simply calling on Christ to become present in the bread and wine, then the Eucharist is not consecrated.

Now, Blessed John Paul the Great put the issue of “womenpriests” to bed with Sacerdotalis Ordinatio. Women cannot not receive sacerdotal ordination. Period.

 

[1holycatholic]

yes, they can have Holy Communion. many protestant churches have communion.
they don’t believe as the Catholic church that it is the Real Presence.

They have crackers and grape juice, not the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[1holycatholic]

What about the Old Catholic Churches and also the breakaway Catholics who reject Vatican II?
A while back there was a statement from the Vatican on the invalidity of the Anglican orders and that seemed to settle the issue once and for all. But later on,
there was a question as to whether or not some of the Anglicans and Episcopalians might have valid orders because of the fact that there had been instances where Old Catholic bishops had participated in some of the ordinations. However, now with the introduction of women “priests”, obviously any even remote possibility to recognise the validity of Anglican orders becomes more and more dubious.

Anglican Orders are not valid. The rare Anglican with valid orders received them from a non-Anglican schismatic group not using the Anglican rite of ordination.

 

[1holycatholic]

According to your faith beliefs they don’t.

It’s not a matter of “my beliefs”, rather it is a matter of metaphysical certitude.

 

[Publisher]

They have crackers and grape juice, not the Blessed Sacrament.

I am always amazed at some of the statements by those who claim that the receive Christ in the bread and wine.

Episcopalians believe their sacrament is as holy and sacred as Catholics believe theirs is…how can those who truly believe in the Real Presence not embody the love and mercy they have received and extend it to others? I’m always amazed that those who claim to “have Christ” can’t…or won’t…extend respect to others and their beliefs…I thought at the very least forum rules covered such things as respect toward others and their beliefs:shrug:…if not the Spirit of Christ Himself.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am always amazed at some of the statements by those who claim that the receive Christ in the bread and wine.

Episcopalians believe their sacrament is as holy and sacred as Catholics believe theirs is…how can those who truly believe in the Real Presence not embody the love and mercy they have received and extend it to others? I’m always amazed that those who claim to “have Christ” can’t…or won’t…extend respect to others and their beliefs…I thought at the very least forum rules covered such things as respect toward others and their beliefs:shrug:…if not the Spirit of Christ Himself.

Because Christ’s teachings are not subject to interpretation. The Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) have taught that bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We have taught this since the beginning of Christianity. The teaching that Christ becomes spiritually present at Communion is a modern heresy that the Apostles would have rightly declared as a false and dangerous teaching, because it directly contradicts the actual words of Jesus Christ, and diminishes, if not directly negates, the meaning of the passion and death of our Lord.

Love and Truth are one in the same, if we don’t demand Truth, we are harming others by allowing them to dwell in darkness.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

 

[Publisher]

Because Christ’s teachings are not subject to interpretation. The Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) have taught that bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We have taught this since the beginning of Christianity. The teaching that Christ becomes spiritually present at Communion is a modern heresy that the Apostles would have rightly declared as a false and dangerous teaching, because it directly contradicts the actual words of Jesus Christ, and diminishes, if not directly negates, the meaning of the passion and death of our Lord.

Love and Truth are one in the same, if we don’t demand Truth, we are harming others by allowing them to dwell in darkness.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

You’re in good company…Episcopalians too believe in the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist…why defend rude and less than charitable statements made against another’s faith and belief?

 

[He_Man]

You’re in good company…Episcopalians too believe in the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist…why defend rude and less than charitable statements made against another’s faith and belief?

I don’t think the intent is to be rude or uncharitable, but simply to call out the truth as it exists. Simply believeing something doesn’t make it true. Just ask Santa Claus.

The Catholic Church deals in truth, and to ask anyone on hear to declare otherwise would be disingenuous, and would be asking for them to be less than they are called to be as Catholics.

The only way to avoid that would be to never bring up another set of religious beliefs on this board, but that isn’t exactly healthy.

 

[Publisher]

I don’t think the intent is to be rude or uncharitable, but simply to call out the truth as it exists. Simply believeing something doesn’t make it true. Just ask Santa Claus.

The Catholic Church deals in truth, and to ask anyone on hear to declare otherwise would be disingenuous, and would be asking for them to be less than they are called to be as Catholics.

The only way to avoid that would be to never bring up another set of religious beliefs on this board, but that isn’t exactly healthy.

It must be the Quaker in me…I would think a less disparaging remark could have been made…but then…that’s just me.

 

[He_Man]

Perhaps, but I don’t know the intent. I do agree that charity is important.

 

[ringil]

Well, The Church’s differentiation between true Churches and ecclesial bodies isn’t really disaraging. It’s a matter of Canaon law and doctrine. If folks are using this clarification to be rude that’s just rude and it isn’t the goal of the Church in making this disinction.

So no, as the Catholic Church is conserned Episcopalianism and Anglicanism are not “Churches” in the proper sense.

All I have said up until this point stand however. We should pray for these folks and embrace those who genuinely feel called to explore Christ’s true Church.

Remember: “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”