please explain Episcopalian view

[jlhargus]

I didn’t know the Church says who ends in hell.

JL: You are correct the Church does not say what individuals end in hell, but the Church does say unrepented mortal sin ends in hell. It certainly isn’t loving being nicie nice to one in mortal sin by telling them it’s not a sin. It is loving to tell people the TRUTH.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi Matt. Quick question. Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Or is truth just something that is up to the individual? Peace

Benidict, that’s 2 questions. But I won’t plead the 5th and I’ll answer both as I’m in a great mood after :hammering: uh I mean humbling :yup: the Badgers! But anyway I tend to believe yes to the first. I tend to believe in the end no to the 2nd. But as you may know I am humble enough not to presume I can’t be wrong or to presume that my faith and beliefs are absolute certainty. I try to humble myself enough so not to place my faith and beliefs as being beyond any more than what faith and belief by definition are.

 

[CMatt25]

I know this is your personal bugboo, Matt, but I find it astonishing that you attempt to limit God in this way so that He must comply to ‘your’ rules.

If Jane has committed a mortal sin, it is a mortal sin, whether you personally think it is a ‘big deal’ or not. If she (a ‘good Christian’) knowingly commits that sin and doesn’t repent, then Jane is choosing to put HER will over God’s.

It is not God’s judgment which sends Jane to hell, it is JANE who chooses to say, “My will, God, not yours” and JANE who chooses hell.

I don’t know why you find it so difficult to see that God’s mercy is that He permits Jane to choose. She had the chance, she chose death, and rather than force her to obey Him, He permits her to have her will even though that will is to deny and defy Him.

I don’t know why you try to make it that He is ‘punishing’ her. It would be a punishment for Him to MAKE her obey Him – it is NOT a punishment to let her have her way!

Tantum, yes I understand about free will. I just disagree with some of the rules in which Jane had tied onto her back supposedly required to obey Him. That is more my bugboo.

 

[po18guy]

That’s ok. I understand many Catholics believe their faith reveals all known truth and believe they can know with absolute certainty, and therefore can find another faith or belief anathema. God bless you in your walk and peace.

Slight modification needed: The Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of faith, which is the total of God’s revealed truth. It is not all* known truth*, as that would also involve medical and scientific knowledge, among others.

Important point: Catholic teaching, from the deposit of faith, has not changed, whereas virtually every non-Cartholic source has indeed changed its teaching. This seems to have begun in the 19th century and accelerated rapidly in the 20th century. Please ponder whether it was the truth that changed, or simply man’s desires that changed. Life is short. Eternity is long.

 

[CMatt25]

Slight modification needed: The Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of faith, which is the total of God’s revealed truth. It is not all* known truth*, as that would also involve medical and scientific knowledge, among others.

Important point: Catholic teaching, from the deposit of faith, has not changed, whereas virtually every non-Cartholic source has indeed changed its teaching. This seems to have begun in the 19th century and accelerated rapidly in the 20th century. Please ponder whether it was the truth that changed, or simply man’s desires that changed. Life is short. Eternity is long.

Sigh. Ok I know you guys like to get literal. On at least some things. Me too on some things. I’d say most of us do in our faiths. But when I say you believe the Catholic Church has all known truth, I AM talking about what you believe to be the total of God’s revealed truth in the deposit of FAITH. I’m not talking about medicine or science on a faith forum.

Anyway what I ponder is whether human authority has strayed, overreached in control, placed too many yokes upon backs in order to wield more control than what Christ intended. And whether in faith that is why Christ to make certain He keeps His promise of the gates not prevailing against His Church, may need from time to time to correct the course to keep His Church on the track He set for it. But then that’s me. I’ve never been one that needs everything spelled out for me. I’m perfectly comfortable in accepting there are many unknowns and mysteries of faith and no human being in matters of faith, can truly know with any absolute certainty whether their faith is the exact truth. I guess we shall know when in faith He comes again how much of any of this we discuss beyond say things such as love, concern for the poor, the sick, truly mattered in the end. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

I think the “relativism” discussion is somewhat of a distraction. While people who maintain the liberal view may sometimes be relativists, nothing about the position presently dominant in the Episcopal Church requires relativism, any more than the conservative position requires Biblical literalism.

There is nothing whatsoever relativistic about saying that you can’t simply appeal to the literal sense of Scripture unless you are willing to do so consistently. It’s pretty easy to show that the condemnations of same-sex intercourse in the OT occur side by side with prohibitions which Christians do not obey. Therefore, these passages cannot in and of themselves, absent further reflection, settle the matter. Nothing relativistic about that–just logical.

Paul’s condemnation in Romans 1 is on much firmer ground, but even there one can ask questions about just what he’s condemning, whether we are willing to accept consistently his assumptions about the order of nature, and whether such assumptions/assertions are the primary point of the passage.

After establishing that these passages cannot simply settle the matter in isolation from broader considerations (a point with which I agree), the liberal case typically goes something like this:

1. The core of Christianity is the all-inclusive love of Christ, which calls all people into fellowship with God and one another and reaches out with particular care to those whom the world regards as dirty or inferior. Therefore, we should be highly suspect of any version of Christian ethics which supports the marginalization of one group of people or which allows the dominant majority to rest smugly in the belief that their inclinations are uniquely endorsed by God.
2. Christian ethics are founded on love of God and neighbor; therefore, anything condemned as sinful must be shown to be contrary to love of God and neighbor.
3. Same-sex couples who are faithful to one another and generally show the virtues we expect from Christian marriage demonstrably exist, and their existence (in combination with the first two principles) casts our traditional understanding of the norms for Christian marriage into serious doubt.
4. There is precedent in the New Testament for overcoming “exclusive” principles which have serious Scriptural support behind them–namely the debate over inclusion of Gentiles as recorded in the book of acts. Liberals find striking parallels between this debate and the present debate over homosexuality, and they tend to see the Gentile debate as the paradigm for all later debates about “including” a marginalized group. (See Luke Timothy Johnson’s book on discernment for a good statement of this position.)
5. Finally, liberals observe that Paul speaks of there being no “male and female” in Christ, and that there are other passages in Scripture which arguably point toward a devaluing of sexual differentiation in light of our call to love God and one another in Christ.

In light of these considerations, liberals argue that the apparent condemnations of same-sex behavior must be interpreted in light of broad principles found in Scripture and the Christian tradition, and that these principles call us away from an emphasis on gender differentiation and toward an ethic founded on love for one another, which looks not at the number of chromosomes found in candidates for either ordination or marriage but rather for the quality of the Christian love (not talking about eros here but agape) that they demonstrate.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

I think the “relativism” discussion is somewhat of a distraction. While people who maintain the liberal view may sometimes be relativists, nothing about the position presently dominant in the Episcopal Church requires relativism, any more than the conservative position requires Biblical literalism.

There is nothing whatsoever relativistic about saying that you can’t simply appeal to the literal sense of Scripture unless you are willing to do so consistently. It’s pretty easy to show that the condemnations of same-sex intercourse in the OT occur side by side with prohibitions which Christians do not obey. Therefore, these passages cannot in and of themselves, absent further reflection, settle the matter. Nothing relativistic about that–just logical.

Paul’s condemnation in Romans 1 is on much firmer ground, but even there one can ask questions about just what he’s condemning, whether we are willing to accept consistently his assumptions about the order of nature, and whether such assumptions/assertions are the primary point of the passage.

After establishing that these passages cannot simply settle the matter in isolation from broader considerations (a point with which I agree), the liberal case typically goes something like this:

1. The core of Christianity is the all-inclusive love of Christ, which calls all people into fellowship with God and one another and reaches out with particular care to those whom the world regards as dirty or inferior. Therefore, we should be highly suspect of any version of Christian ethics which supports the marginalization of one group of people or which allows the dominant majority to rest smugly in the belief that their inclinations are uniquely endorsed by God.
2. Christian ethics are founded on love of God and neighbor; therefore, anything condemned as sinful must be shown to be contrary to love of God and neighbor.
3. Same-sex couples who are faithful to one another and generally show the virtues we expect from Christian marriage demonstrably exist, and their existence (in combination with the first two principles) casts our traditional understanding of the norms for Christian marriage into serious doubt.
4. There is precedent in the New Testament for overcoming “exclusive” principles which have serious Scriptural support behind them–namely the debate over inclusion of Gentiles as recorded in the book of acts. Liberals find striking parallels between this debate and the present debate over homosexuality, and they tend to see the Gentile debate as the paradigm for all later debates about “including” a marginalized group. (See Luke Timothy Johnson’s book on discernment for a good statement of this position.)
5. Finally, liberals observe that Paul speaks of there being no “male and female” in Christ, and that there are other passages in Scripture which arguably point toward a devaluing of sexual differentiation in light of our call to love God and one another in Christ.

In light of these considerations, liberals argue that the apparent condemnations of same-sex behavior must be interpreted in light of broad principles found in Scripture and the Christian tradition, and that these principles call us away from an emphasis on gender differentiation and toward an ethic founded on love for one another, which looks not at the number of chromosomes found in candidates for either ordination or marriage but rather for the quality of the Christian love (not talking about eros here but agape) that they demonstrate.

Edwin

Edwin, thank you! And if I didnt know better those were the words of a liberal Episcopalian or liberal Christian in general. But I need to take some of the points you explained with me. Peace.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Ah, I knew we would eventually get there. Christ’s love. Because Christ loves the sinner, we must accept the sin and love them because of it.

Ever hear the expression, “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”?

Christ loves all of us. BUT, he very specifically told us that we have to follow the rules, or we would be rejecting him and his father.

Does he WANT us to reject him? NO!

Does he know that many of us WILL reject him? Yes he certainly does.

Those that “reread” scripture to allow the sinner to continue the sin, even elevating the ongoing and unrepentant sinner to a place of authority over the rest, are not following Christ’s way at all. Instead, they are placing mans rules in place of Christ’s.

That is exactly what the leadership of the Episcopalian Church, and the “Western” version of the Anglican Communion are doing. They are taking men and women, who are publicly living a life of sin, and placing those people in ministry over the faithful.

There is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT THIS DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE BIBLE.

Are there homosexual Catholic Priests? Yes there are.

Does out church seek out such men, promote their lifestyle and deliberately place them in positions of authority over the faithful? No, it does not, and it specifically attempts to weed out such persons from its seminaries.

There is the big difference. The Roman Catholic Church makes every effort to not ordain practicing homosexuals. The Episcopal church makes every effort to identify them and to promote them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum, yes I understand about free will. I just disagree with some of the rules in which Jane had tied onto her back supposedly required to obey Him. That is more my bugboo.

By what or whose authority, Matt, do you determine that you can ‘disagree with some of the rules?’

Did God give you the authority to ‘bind and loose?’

Did He announce that He would build his Church on the Rock of Matt?

Did He guarantee that you would be protected from teaching error and guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth --you personally, even if what you ‘hear’ from the Spirit contradicts other ‘equally ardent’ faithful Christians?

It seems to me that you contradict yourself over and over, because you’re willing to accept any and all ‘relative’ truths as equal, valid, and ‘true for you if you think they are’. . .except absolute truth.

You shy away from that. Oh, you’ll accept it as ‘theoretical’, but you just don’t trust that the Catholic Church ‘has’ it. Because your personal opinion is that this rule here or that rule there is some rule that wasn’t really from God. Poor God. He can die for us and gain us salvation, but He can’t keep His teaching ‘secure’. How powerful we ‘men’ are in that we can in the space of 2000 years ensure that NOBODY really KNOWS what Christ taught nor can we trust ‘organized religion’ and can only go with what we personally ‘think’.

Actually I kind of wonder which Catholic teachings you’d actually accept as absolute truths (if any). . . and why.

 

[CMatt25]

By what or whose authority, Matt, do you determine that you can ‘disagree with some of the rules?’

Did God give you the authority to ‘bind and loose?’

Did He announce that He would build his Church on the Rock of Matt?

Did He guarantee that you would be protected from teaching error and guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth --you personally, even if what you ‘hear’ from the Spirit contradicts other ‘equally ardent’ faithful Christians?

It seems to me that you contradict yourself over and over, because you’re willing to accept any and all ‘relative’ truths as equal, valid, and ‘true for you if you think they are’. . .except absolute truth.

You shy away from that. Oh, you’ll accept it as ‘theoretical’, but you just don’t trust that the Catholic Church ‘has’ it. Because your personal opinion is that this rule here or that rule there is some rule that wasn’t really from God. Poor God. He can die for us and gain us salvation, but He can’t keep His teaching ‘secure’. How powerful we ‘men’ are in that we can in the space of 2000 years ensure that NOBODY really KNOWS what Christ taught nor can we trust ‘organized religion’ and can only go with what we personally ‘think’.

Actually I kind of wonder which Catholic teachings you’d actually accept as absolute truths (if any). . . and why.

Hi Tantum, haven’t we been over this? You do not have to believe we can open our hearts to God’s Spirit and He will tell us where He wants our hearts to be, without turning your reasoning and conscience over to other human beings. But that is my faith at the moment. So I know you don’t like the answer in your disbelief of such a faith. But it is following much prayer, study, and yes informing and proper catechism before anyone brings those up. I know you guys! I have found some of you like to right away say if someone disagrees with you they are either not informed or are not properly catechized. Well that or a relativist. That’s a popular one too! Though I understand that can come from thinking faith can be absolutely proven certainty. But anyway after these things and contemplation, and more prayer, it is then by what I believe the Holy Spirit is convincing onto my heart and conscience at any moment by which I live my faith by. But Tantum, I am an unfinished product, on a lifelong journey with our Lord. And I do not proclaim infallibilty whatsoever. Only that I am a human on a walk of faith. And it is a reason why I “keep the door open” yet now.

Jn 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you, 26The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

2Cor 13:13, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

I also draw from the following in the CCC:

From CCC1775 “His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Here is a huge one by which I live. CCC 1782 "**Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” **

And finally from 1790 **“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” **

See Tantum, I worry far more about following my conscience. Even if it disagrees with Catholic Church teaching after it has been informed and properly catechized. Than for instance if I should miss Mass next Nov 1 on a Tuesday or Thursday Dec 8.

And Tantum I don’t know where you get I would accept “any and all”. It is something perhaps some here have conjured up about me. But I have time and time again said I believe there is one ultimate truth out there. And I tend to still believe that. Not “any and all”. As obviously all can not be right on every detail. Unless it turns out many of the details are not as important as we might think they are. There are many things Catholics believe that I accept on faith too. But you are correct however I question whether the Catholic Church or any denomination or individual for that matter can have all matters of faith exactly correct.

Along all of our lifelong walks by faith, not by sight, peace to all…

 

[benidict]

The Old Medic-There is the big difference. The Roman Catholic Church makes every effort to not ordain practicing homosexuals. The Episcopal church makes every effort to identify them and to promote them. ME- And I shudder to think of what perversion the leftist are going to attempt to legitamize next. And the type of people these leftist church leaders are going to attempt to promote. After all, there is no right or wrong, so…Hopefully I dont live long enough to see the full scope of their damage.

 

[StTommyMore]

Hi Tantum, haven’t we been over this? You do not have to believe we can open our hearts to God’s Spirit and He will tell us where He wants our hearts to be, without turning your reasoning and conscience over to other human beings. But that is my faith at the moment. So I know you don’t like the answer in your disbelief of such a faith. But it is following much prayer, study, and yes informing and proper catechism before anyone brings those up. I know you guys! I have found some of you like to right away say if someone disagrees with you they are either not informed or are not properly catechized. Well that or a relativist. That’s a popular one too! Though I understand that can come from thinking faith can be absolutely proven certainty. But anyway after these things and contemplation, and more prayer, it is then by what I believe the Holy Spirit is convincing onto my heart and conscience at any moment by which I live my faith by. But Tantum, I am an unfinished product, on a lifelong journey with our Lord. And I do not proclaim infallibilty whatsoever. Only that I am a human on a walk of faith. And it is a reason why I “keep the door open” yet now.

Jn 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you, 26The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

2Cor 13:13, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

I also draw from the following in the CCC:

From CCC1775 “His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

Here is a huge one by which I live. CCC 1782 "**Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” **

And finally from 1790 **“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” **

See Tantum, I worry far more about following my conscience. Even if it disagrees with Catholic Church teaching after it has been informed and properly catechized. Than for instance if I should miss Mass next Nov 1 on a Tuesday or Thursday Dec 8.

And Tantum I don’t know where you get I would accept “any and all”. It is something perhaps some here have conjured up about me. But I have time and time again said I believe there is one ultimate truth out there. And I tend to still believe that. Not “any and all”. As obviously all can not be right on every detail. Unless it turns out many of the details are not as important as we might think they are. There are many things Catholics believe that I accept on faith too. But you are correct however I question whether the Catholic Church or any denomination or individual for that matter can have all matters of faith exactly correct.

Along all of our lifelong walks by faith, not by sight, peace to all…

Oy vey. Conscience does not trump Church teaching. You have a responsibility to properly form your conscience, and if it differs from Church teaching, you know that it si not properly formed.

 

[CMatt25]

Oy vey. Conscience does not trump Church teaching. You have a responsibility to properly form your conscience, and if it differs from Church teaching, you know that it si not properly formed.

I know that is your faith. And that’s great you have faith! But CCC could have been smaller had they simply not bothered then with the sections I quoted.

 

[StTommyMore]

I know that is your faith. And that’s great you have faith! But CCC could have been smaller had they simply not bothered then with the sections I quoted.

That is not my faith. That is the faith. Submission to the th Church is not open to debate. If there is disagreement between you in the Church, it is you who are in error, not the Church. Furthermore, you easily ignore the following passages of the Catechism which say that the conscience can act in error.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know that is your faith. And that’s great you have faith! But CCC could have been smaller had they simply not bothered then with the sections I quoted.

Now see, Matt, this is what I’m talking about.

You treat Tommy’s ‘faith’ as simply ‘his personal opinion’ . . .as though there is for each and every person a ‘truth’ which is for that person but not necessarily another. . .

And refuse to consider that what he makes as a state and you persist in calling just ‘his’ ‘faith’ could be God’s revealed Truth.

Not just revealed to Tommy but to ALL of us.

That’s why you will always be swimming in a positive sea of ‘choice’ and blind to the life-line that is being thrown to you. Don’t drown, Matt! Grab onto that rope and stop treading water because you can’t decide which way to go!

 

[CMatt25]

Tommy, Tantum, yes I know. You place your faith in all Catholic Church interpretations and hold to the belief that the Catholic faith without err has held and continues to hold all revealed truth necessary for salvation from the beginning of Christ’s Church. And Christ never has needed to correct the course in order to keep His promise of the gates not prevailing against His Church, the Body of Christ. And I guess that Her shepherds always bear good fruit to know them by. So I understand you believe the Catholic faith is THE one. I know thats what you accept and believe. God bless you both.

 

[StTommyMore]

Tommy, Tantum, yes I know. You place your faith in all Catholic Church interpretations and hold to the belief that the Catholic faith without err has held and continues to hold all revealed truth necessary for salvation from the beginning of Christ’s Church. And I guess that Her shepherds always bear good fruit to know them by. So I understand you believe the Catholic faith is THE one. I know thats what you accept and believe. God bless you both.

Truth is not relative. Two diametrically opposed statements cannot both be true. This is very basic philosophy. It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. Personal belief has no bearing, but what can shown tho be true through reason enlightened by faith.

 

[benidict]

Tommy, Tantum, yes I know. You place your faith in all Catholic Church interpretations and hold to the belief that the Catholic faith without err has held and continues to hold all revealed truth necessary for salvation from the beginning of Christ’s Church. And Christ never has needed to correct the course in order to keep His promise of the gates not prevailing against His Church, the Body of Christ. And I guess that Her shepherds always bear good fruit to know them by. So I understand you believe the Catholic faith is THE one. I know thats what you accept and believe. God bless you both.

Matt. Have you ever had the pleasure of reading pilgrims progress? wasnt there a charachter in that story called Pliable?