Scary Episcopalian Encounter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cherub
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cherub

Guest
Last night I sat in with a friend at a confirmation class for the Episcopal church (ECUSA). The program director explained he was pursuing the priesthood and had only a few more steps to go, which was nice, so I nodded.
The program he used was called “Via Media,” consisted of DVDs outlining the gist of the Anglican faith, and featured mostly female bishops and priestesses, and one male former Roman Catholic Jesuit priest who mysteriously avoided addressing his reason for leaving the Church until the second DVD, where he revealed his reason for leaving: he fell in love.
It only got worse from there. The DVDs were all about “inclusion” of everyone, tolerance and acceptance of homosexual clergy, an idea that our Trinitarian concept of God was “simplistic” and that God could also be “God the Mother” etc…

It was nightmarish!!! But it gets even worse…

After two DVDs, the program director and priest-in-training asked what we thought of everything. I had been scribbling down points to which I objected, and I mentioned my problem with the idea of “God the Mother” or “God the Goddess” and all that, oh, also they had said that the Episcopal Church welcomes you no matter who you are, but went on to explain that people are good just as they are, and that they don’t focus on sin, but on each individual’s “unique gifts” (and of course we can imagine what that actually is saying…) and I objected to those things and…well, it all spiraled downward when I mentioned the ECUSA had been all but destroyed by the election of Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire. They guy started asking me why there was a problem with that, to which I responded there was nothing in scripture or tradition to support the ordination of practicing homosexuals–and then he dropped the bomb that he is gay and has been “living with his partner for 10 years.” My jaw just dropped open. I was astounded that any Christian church could really be trying to sell this.

I really had no idea it had gotten this bad for the Episcopals. I was under the misguided assumption that the crazy things going on in that church were isolated freak incidents–but they actually seem to be teaching this stuff to people for confirmation. :eek:
 
40.png
Cherub:
Last night I sat in with a friend at a confirmation class for the Episcopal church (ECUSA). The program director explained he was pursuing the priesthood and had only a few more steps to go, which was nice, so I nodded.
The program he used was called “Via Media,” consisted of DVDs outlining the gist of the Anglican faith, and featured mostly female bishops and priestesses, and one male former Roman Catholic Jesuit priest who mysteriously avoided addressing his reason for leaving the Church until the second DVD, where he revealed his reason for leaving: he fell in love.
It only got worse from there. The DVDs were all about “inclusion” of everyone, tolerance and acceptance of homosexual clergy, an idea that our Trinitarian concept of God was “simplistic” and that God could also be “God the Mother” etc…

It was nightmarish!!! But it gets even worse…

After two DVDs, the program director and priest-in-training asked what we thought of everything. I had been scribbling down points to which I objected, and I mentioned my problem with the idea of “God the Mother” or “God the Goddess” and all that, oh, also they had said that the Episcopal Church welcomes you no matter who you are, but went on to explain that people are good just as they are, and that they don’t focus on sin, but on each individual’s “unique gifts” (and of course we can imagine what that actually is saying…) and I objected to those things and…well, it all spiraled downward when I mentioned the ECUSA had been all but destroyed by the election of Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire. They guy started asking me why there was a problem with that, to which I responded there was nothing in scripture or tradition to support the ordination of practicing homosexuals–and then he dropped the bomb that he is gay and has been “living with his partner for 10 years.” My jaw just dropped open. I was astounded that any Christian church could really be trying to sell this.

I really had no idea it had gotten this bad for the Episcopals. I was under the misguided assumption that the crazy things going on in that church were isolated freak incidents–but they actually seem to be teaching this stuff to people for confirmation. :eek:
Click to expand...
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_25.gif
 
That is the trouble with Anglicanism. The American church, the Canadian, the Mother Church in England are beset with just these sorts of problems that you have cited. There are opposing movements in the communion in each of the countries above (quite large since the “consecration” of V. Gene Robinson) and in the Anglicanism of Africa this stuff would be anathema. They have no one to draw a line in the sand and say “No more!” The Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority like the Holy Father to bind and loose. He doesn’t even have juridicial authority over any other bishop in the Church of England.
 
Cherub, I saw in your profile that You are Roman Catholic, just as I am.

I think I want to thank you for revealing what went on in an Episcopal “RCIA”. ( dont know what to call it.) When I got to the part that said the “almost to be” priest was a practicing homosexual…I had to read it several times to make sure. I have a comment.

The DVDs he used most likely were made by the Purple Army (gays). How could a man who is an ex-Jesuit stand there and tell the group that God had the name of a Goddess? How could he say that sins dont matter, they accept the man for his “gifts”. What a load of baloney.

Using his version of acceptance as applied to basketball, the Conferences would have to allow players who used steroids and any other narcotics play. They would have to allow players who failed all their classes play. This “inclusion” doesnt stand up in the real world.

Cherub, did all the other people seem to swallow that line the instructor was giving? Are you going back? Do your homework if you do and ask the “dude” for biblical references for his being homosexual and also a priest of God. Have your verses ready.
 
Exporter said:
Cherub, I saw in your profile that You are Roman Catholic, just as I am.

Cherub, did all the other people seem to swallow that line the instructor was giving? Are you going back? Do your homework if you do and ask the “dude” for biblical references for his being homosexual and also a priest of God. Have your verses ready.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Well, there were no other people besides me, my friend, and one other woman. When I tentatively raised arguments to certain Episcopal “teachings”, the woman, who clearly does not have any sort of a theological background but at least has some innate sense of right, would nod her head along and agree with what I had said.

For instance, there was a conversation that went like this:

Director: “So, do you believe that God changes?”

Friend: “Hm. What do you mean exactly?”

Director: “Well, do you think that God is only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as presented in the Judeo-Christian context, or don’t you suppose he can be whatever he wants, maybe even something different to each individual?”

Friend: “Oh, well, no, I believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I don’t think God really changes.”

Director: (looking at the woman) “How about you? Could you see God as being, say, a mother or maybe even a goddess if that’s how she chose to seem to you? Do you really think God is limited?”

Woman: (very big eyes)“Well, I’d have to agree with him (points at my friend) because I don’t think God changes. I just can’t see God as, say, a woman. I like to imagine him sort of like a very wise man with a beard.”

Director: (looking at me) “Is that what you think, too?”

Me: “God never changes. God has chosen to reveal himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is nothing in either scripture or tradition to suggest more or less than that, so that’s what I believe.”

Director: (clucking sympathetically and looking disappointed) “That’s pretty simplistic.”

Me: “It’s pretty true.” (nods from friend and woman)

And basically things kept going on like this, but got worse and worse and ended when I finally got up from the table and said “No disrespect to you, personally, but I’ve heard enough. I’m going.”

And I went, and my friend came with me. When the director saw this he asked, “What does that mean?” And I looked at my friend and he looked and me and I said “It means we’re not coming back.”
 
40.png
Cherub:
And I went, and my friend came with me. When the director saw this he asked, “What does that mean?” And I looked at my friend and he looked and me and I said **“It means we’re not coming back.”/**QUOTE]

:clapping: :dancing: :love:
Click to expand...
 
Greetings, Cherub,

“I really had no idea it had gotten this bad for the Episcopals. I was under the misguided assumption that the crazy things going on in that church were isolated freak incidents–but they actually seem to be teaching this stuff to people for confirmation.”

Things are that bad for lots of Anglicans. It is the concept of orthodoxy that is the freakish exception. They teach this sort of stuff in catechism class, they require it in seminary. The last orthodox ECUSA bishop was probably consecrated some years back. Circumstances not unique to ECUSA, but ubiquitous there.

GKC

traditional Anglican
 
Hmm, I’ve had high hopes that the Anglicans would all one day reunite with the Catholic Church as their own Rite, but it seems like ECUSA is about a million miles away from that. The Catholic Church wouldn’t have such heresy in ANY Rite of the Church. It makes me want to vomit that anyone purporting to be a Christian could hold such inane and heretical views.

-Michael
 
Its good to see YOU are all such good christians that you have the power to judge. Funnily enough, the christians I know DO show love and tolerance to sinners as Jesus did. We are meant to live His Way after all…
 
40.png
teresas1979:
Its good to see YOU are all such good christians that you have the power to judge. Funnily enough, the christians I know DO show love and tolerance to sinners as Jesus did. We are meant to live His Way after all…
Click to expand...
Recognizing and exposing false teaching isn’t “judging”, but exercising discernment. Those who shout “don’t judge” typically don’t want to be accountable to anyone or anything.

Have you noticed how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees? He called them hypocrites - in public.
 
I don’t believe that Jesus “tolerated” sinners in the sense that many use “tolerance” today–equating it with “acceptance”.

Jesus (and we, as Christians) can love us, yet hate our sins (which separate us from Him). As Christians, we are called on to fraternal correction of sins, in ourselves first, and then in our brothers. As to the ultimate judgment, that of course belongs to God.

I don’t see “judgment” (i.e., condemnation) of people; I see judgment, or condemnation, of sin, with a sincere hope that those guilty of sin (all of us) repent and return to God.

NOT that, in the spirit of tolerance, that we allow, foster, or encourage sin, because that’s the “loving” way to act.

If your boyfriend wants to make love to you, and you allow it, because you don’t want to hurt his feelings, you don’t want to “deny” your love. . .you’re still sinning, and you know it. No excuse of “but it would have HURT him if I’d refused” can take that sin away, or excuse it. . .can it?
 
Sadly, your experience with the Episcopalians has highlighted a problem across all of the Anglican Communion.

If a Catholic is asked, “What is the teaching of the Church on [say] marriage?”, he can consult the Catechism.

But the Anglican Christian is faced with the situation that there is no definitive Anglican teaching. Of course, there is recourse to Holy Scripture in some cases, but there is no authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture available to him, either.

“Via Media”, by the way, which once meant a “middle way”, has become, today, a code word for liberal theology in Anglican circles. My Anglican friends, who are fighting to hold onto the truth they have, never use it any more.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Have you noticed how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees? He called them hypocrites - in public.

But Jesus is God and God can judge, He never conferred that power on to you. He actually taught:

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” John 8:7
 
40.png
teresas1979:
But Jesus is God and God can judge, He never conferred that power on to you. He actually taught:

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” John 8:7
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t want to get into a Scripture sound bite duel, but there are dozens of cases in Scripture where the apostles “judged” others, in other words, pointed out sin publicly (see Acts 5:1-11). There are also dozens of Scriptures that tell us to discern good from evil.

Are you suggesting that we should simply smile and say “that’s fine for you, do whatever your conscience tells you, I’m not going to judge” and leave them in their sin?

How about where Scripture says that if your brother offends you go to him and point out his sin, if he won’t listen to you then take two or three witnesses, if he won’t listen, then bring him before the Church? If he still refuses to repent then expel him from the community and treat him like a pagan.

I don’t advocate being “judgmental” as in condemning someone else who has individual sin (how can you take the speck out of your brother’s eye when you have a plank in your own eye?). However, we are obligated, for the sake of our fellow Christians who might be misled, to point out false teaching. The experience related at the beginning of this thread was not meant to condemn the man who was teaching the class, but to point out false teaching in the Episcopalian Christian community.

Your first comment contained sarcasm that could have easily been taken as doing the very thing you intended to condemn and that is “judging others.” I’m sorry, but I found the tone of your comment offensive and could not let it pass without comment.
 
40.png
JimO:
Your first comment contained sarcasm that could have easily been taken as doing the very thing you intended to condemn and that is “judging others.” I’m sorry, but I found the tone of your comment offensive and could not let it pass without comment.
Click to expand...
Many catholics espouse themselves as members of the “one true church” thereby judging everyone who doesn’t agree on every little detail as a heretic (And V-II doesn’t cancel out Trent, this is the catholic teaching i have been given). Catholicism teaches its members to think of themselves as better christians and I was pointing out that this in effect here. I agree that you should not teach anything contradictory to the Bible but some of the threads here seem to condemn the man, not just his teaching. You find MY tone offensive but not the belief that the man must be wrong because he thinks differently to you.
 
40.png
teresas1979:
You find MY tone offensive but not the belief that the man must be wrong because he thinks differently to you.
Click to expand...
I will agree that many of these threads get offensive for a lot of reasons and that people do slip into condemnation of the individual. I actually have concerns about the example that we show on these forums. I’ve been guilty of it myself and am trying very hard to be charitable.

Regarding your last comment, I realize that my sins are no less serious than that of a homosexual, someone who is living with someone outside of marriage, a murderer, etc. I cannot judge or condemn those individuals; however, my point is that telling others that homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and murder are wrong is not “being judgemental” and when others “think differently” and that thinking is wrong, according to Scripture, and those individuals try to teach that error to others, we are obligated to point out that the teaching is in error, without judging the individual personally.

The old saying, “hate the sin, but love the sinner” sums it up for me.
 
Ugh! This is terrible, I’ve seen the same thing however.

** Information on Via Media: **

everyvoice.net/viamedia/

** Excerpt about the former Jesuit: **

Mark Bozutti-Jones
¥ Native of Jamaica
¥ Former Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest and Missionary in Latin America
¥ Left the Catholic Church to marry his wife, Kathy
¥ Author of several books, including biography of Bishop Barbara Harris
¥ Ordained Episcopal priest in 2003
¥ Associate Rector, Christ Church, Cambridge, MA
 
Love this: ABORTION

The senseless slaughter of MILLIONS of INNOCENT unborn children every year since Roe v. Wade. Is it right in this instance to stand back and say “No, I am not a judger, I am a lover. Whatever you feel is right, is what God wants. Follow your bliss!”

I was having a conversation with a Protestant friend of mine recently about abortion. He pointed out some recent Protestant scholarship that says people get abortions because they don’t believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis anymore.

I charitably disagreed with him. Abortions are the Great Do-over of sex. You had sex for fun and not for procreation, and you “accidentally” make a baby in the process. What do you do? Kill the baby, and start again. But where did this attitude come from? Not from the Christian right, right? I mean, they oppose abortion, right?

Well, yes and no. See, there was a time when NO CHRISTIAN practiced birth control. It was generally understood as sinful to have sex without being open to the possibility for life (re: poor Onan in the OT). But, in the 1930’s things “changed” suddenly, EVERY single Christian church “decided” it was “right” to use birth control. All churches, that is, except ONE.

Then I asked my friend: If ALL of those American Christians had continued living in the faith and only having consecrated (in marriage) sex with the intention of being open to the creation of NEW LIFE, do you honestly think the Supreme Court would have ever had anything to do with abortion law? Do you honestly think we would have developed into a culture that advocates killing the unborn so we can continue paying the digital cable bill?

The answer is most emphatically, no. Sex would not have become recreation, but would have remained a sacred physical act of procreation. If you only have sex when you are open to the creation of life, there is no such thing as a Do-over. The creation of a new human life in this case CANNOT be construed as “accidental.”

Why do I bring this up here? Do y’all know which church was the first to issue an official proclamation condoning birth control? That’s right, our friends, the Anglicans/Episcopalians. They irreparably changed the moral landscape of this country by acting as a catalyst for all other Christian peoples except ONE.

So, the entire abortion holocaust lays in the well-bloodied lap of the Episcopalians (and anyone else who has come to think of sex as just a hobby or game). MILLIONS OF UNBORN CHILDREN DIE EVERY YEAR BECAUSE THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH EXCLUSIVELY RECREATIONAL SEX. They propagated this myth, wrapping it in such touchy-feely Biblical-sounding sentimentality.

I would like to remind that “priest” that their “love” kills babies! And that their faithlessness in God’s wrath has led to more self-righteous murdering in the past century than the past 20 combined! Thanks to them, the culture of death is advancing with such force and tenacity that no one has the clarity of vision to recognize states like California are supporting Hitler’s plan of eugenics and “population control.”

Homosexual sex is not sex. It is a ridiculous farce. It is co-mXXXXXXXXXXn with one’s mirror image and results not in life but death, disease and suffering. Homosexual love is not love. It is self-infatuation and fear of OTHER. The only reason modern people cannot tell the difference is because, surprise surprise, no one believes in sacred physical unions anymore. It’s all a game!

Tag! You’re it! No tag-backs!!
 
40.png
teresas1979:
Have you noticed how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees? He called them hypocrites - in public.

But Jesus is God and God can judge, He never conferred that power on to you. He actually taught:

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” John 8:7
Click to expand...
Teresas1979 , Your profile indicates that you are Catholic.

But truthfully you write as I would expect a Menonite or Quaker to write. The next thing you may say is,“What’s your authority?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top