TOTAL Blasphemy in the Episcopal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jay29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pipper said:
Nor I, I belive in orthodox Christian thought, the bodily ressurection of Our Lord, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, the whole nine yards.

Besides I have never belonged to any Country Club and I graduated from a state university.

When I was Episcopalian the Rector highly resented coming to hospital to see me. No one ever called to see if I was deaad or alive. And never once in a twenty year period did any cleric call on me at home.

But they sure expected you to pay your pledge on time!
Click to expand...
This is another example of how things vary from parish to parish, city to city, state to state. My old Anglican parish, St. Paul’s was EXCEPTIONAL about visiting folks in the hospital, coming to important events, counselling, you name it! Father James would show up at the hospital ANY time, ANYwhere, and sometimes he’d be there even if you didn’t call him! If he couldn’t go, the assistant rector DID, or if both didn’t go, lay people would come or a deacon. I was flabburgasted at how pastoral that parish was. I truly miss it. In fact, the Catholic parish to which I attend now is how you describe. They don’t know your name, if you disappear for months they won’t even know it, and you never see 'em at the hospital or retirement homes. 🤷
 
Holly3278 said:
Yeah and they are definitely teaching heresy in the Episcopal Church. Of course, they’ve been doing that for quite a while. Think of Bishop Spong as an example and all the false teachings that he has in his various books and such. For example, he denies the resurrection of Christ in one of his books.
Click to expand...
Bishop Spong…now that’s a whole other talk show! That would take volumes to chronicle that lunatic’s utterly disgusting views on everything from soup to nuts. The most egregious thing he ever said that blew me away was the comment that “what God did to Jesus is purely child abuse.” He alluded to how God could never commit child abuse so obviously He isn’t God, etc. Stupid.
 
7_Sorrows said:
believe me, it was not an easy decision to make. even though i didn’t belong to any church for many, many years, i considered myself an episcopalian. it was very painful to see what was happening in the episcopal church and to realize how “lost” the church was.
i did think that the Catholic church was truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church
and i had to humble myself to submit to the authority of the Pope, etc.
the episcopalians and anglicans prided themselves in their independence from Rome, so
i had to swallow a lot of pride to become Catholic.
there are many people who are good Christians who do want to remain in the episcopal and anglican churches to do some good. some of them i understand could never be Catholic for several reasons and maybe they have more patience than i or a stronger faith that everything will work out. i felt like God was leading me to the Catholic church and i could not remain in the episcopal church any longer.
Click to expand...
You provide most valuable insights on a number of fronts.

I can relate to the humility. I’d worshipped among the Anglicans for a number of years before I returned Home. The visit to the parish priest to effect the return was very humbling indeed (even though he was totally welcoming and gracious).

I was quite surprised, during those years, at the number of Anglicans I encountered who saw the key to their identity as being, “We’re not Romans.” Quite apart from the pride factor, for many of these people, nothing prepares them to even consider the prospect of “going to Rome,” let alone taking the step. It’s really huge for them. Yet things in these parts (BC Canada) got so bad for Anglican Christians that, a couple of years after I came back Home, 100% of our parish’s RCIA class was Anglicans who wished to “swim the Tiber.”

As for staying, that was something I had to deal with. Was I, I asked, running Home just to hide from an ongoing and intensifying fight? What about the friends who were fighting there with me? Sometimes being human is a bit of a nuisance when faced with tough choices.

I’ll always remember what the parish priest said to me when I met him to return home. I told him of my concern of not being able to continue to fight with my Anglican Christian friends in their battles, but at least, I said, I could pray for them. Without hesitation, he told me, “God would want you to do that.”

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
You provide most valuable insights on a number of fronts.

I can relate to the humility. I’d worshipped among the Anglicans for a number of years before I returned Home. The visit to the parish priest to effect the return was very humbling indeed (even though he was totally welcoming and gracious).

I was quite surprised, during those years, at the number of Anglicans I encountered who saw the key to their identity as being, “We’re not Romans.” Quite apart from the pride factor, for many of these people, nothing prepares them to even consider the prospect of “going to Rome,” let alone taking the step. It’s really huge for them. Yet things in these parts (BC Canada) got so bad for Anglican Christians that, a couple of years after I came back Home, 100% of our parish’s RCIA class was Anglicans who wished to “swim the Tiber.”

As for staying, that was something I had to deal with. Was I, I asked, running Home just to hide from an ongoing and intensifying fight? What about the friends who were fighting there with me? Sometimes being human is a bit of a nuisance when faced with tough choices.

I’ll always remember what the parish priest said to me when I met him to return home. I told him of my concern of not being able to continue to fight with my Anglican Christian friends in their battles, but at least, I said, I could pray for them. Without hesitation, he told me, “God would want you to do that.”

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
thanks Gerry for the beautiful post. i think you understand the frustration and wondering if running to Rome was the answer. part of me also felt guilty for not remaining, but, i also saw the fight was intensifying and i had so many other issues i was trying to deal with in my personal life that i felt overwhelmed. that is the best thing we can do is to continue to pray for the anglican church and for the people who are carrying on with the fight for the true anglican faith to survive.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Bishop Spong…now that’s a whole other talk show! That would take volumes to chronicle that lunatic’s utterly disgusting views on everything from soup to nuts. The most egregious thing he ever said that blew me away was the comment that “what God did to Jesus is purely child abuse.” He alluded to how God could never commit child abuse so obviously He isn’t God, etc. Stupid.
Click to expand...
i have seen a few quotes from Bishop Spong that had my head spinning, but i never did hear this one!!! that statement definitely seems heretical and i wonder why he would even remain a Christian.
 
7_Sorrows said:
i have seen a few quotes from Bishop Spong that had my head spinning, but i never did hear this one!!! that statement definitely seems heretical and i wonder why he would even remain a Christian.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he has?

GKC
 
GKC said:
I can’t discern the nominal bit.

GKC
Click to expand...
I mean Spong claims to be a Christian; I’m saying he’s a nominal Christian, not a real one. From what he teaches it sounds neo-pagan at times and downright atheist and at best agnostic in other moments. I think Sorrows meant he’s a nominal Christian. Maybe I’m wrong…🤷
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I mean Spong claims to be a Christian; I’m saying he’s a nominal Christian, not a real one. From what he teaches it sounds neo-pagan at times and downright atheist and at best agnostic in other moments. I think Sorrows meant he’s a nominal Christian. Maybe I’m wrong…🤷
Click to expand...
But I can’t even grant him the nominal status. He doesn’t qualify.

GKC
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I’m saying he’s a nominal Christian, not a real one.
Click to expand...
Nah, you’re using the wrong descriptor. A nominal Christian would be a Christmas-and-Easter Christian who “just believes in God and Jesus” and that’s pretty much it.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
And it is a complete disservice to real nominal Christians to label him one 😃

God bless
Click to expand...
“Nominal Christian” usually means “someone who claims the Christian name.” Spong does qualify for that. I understand the point you and GKC are making. But I think I disagree with your usage. Ironically I think you’re using the phrase “nominal Christian” in an overly evangelical way. Evangelicals call lukewarm, cultural Christians “nominal,” because to them a “real Christian” is someone with a living faith. But if we define Christian in more historical, visible terms (as Catholics generally do), then the people you have in mind are real (although wobbly) Christians, and “nominal Christian” would best apply to someone who claims the Christian name but clearly rejects some of the basic, visible markers of Christianity.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
“Nominal Christian” usually means “someone who claims the Christian name.” Spong does qualify for that. I understand the point you and GKC are making. But I think I disagree with your usage. Ironically I think you’re using the phrase “nominal Christian” in an overly evangelical way. Evangelicals call lukewarm, cultural Christians “nominal,” because to them a “real Christian” is someone with a living faith. But if we define Christian in more historical, visible terms (as Catholics generally do), then the people you have in mind are real (although wobbly) Christians, and “nominal Christian” would best apply to someone who claims the Christian name but clearly rejects some of the basic, visible markers of Christianity.

Edwin
Click to expand...
i did some research on Bishop Spong which many of you probably already know. he is calling for a New Reformation in Christianity and he wrote a book called a New Christianity for a New World. so i guess he feels that traditional Christianity no longer applies to the modern world we live in today. he still calls himself a Christian although probably not in the same way most of us call ourselves Christians.
 
Contarini said:
“Nominal Christian” usually means “someone who claims the Christian name.” Spong does qualify for that. I understand the point you and GKC are making. But I think I disagree with your usage. Ironically I think you’re using the phrase “nominal Christian” in an overly evangelical way. Evangelicals call lukewarm, cultural Christians “nominal,” because to them a “real Christian” is someone with a living faith. But if we define Christian in more historical, visible terms (as Catholics generally do), then the people you have in mind are real (although wobbly) Christians, and “nominal Christian” would best apply to someone who claims the Christian name but clearly rejects some of the basic, visible markers of Christianity.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I disagree. I’m sayig that Spong has no connection with Christianity whatsoever

He is, however a retired Episcopal bishop.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I disagree. I’m sayig that Spong has no connection with Christianity whatsoever

He is, however a retired Episcopal bishop.

GKC
Click to expand...
Deepok Choprah is more Christian than Spong! LOL…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top