US Church to discipline bishop of Episcopal church who refused to permit same-sex marriage blessings

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If he is maintained in office, I think I would just issue a decree to refuse to perform marriages in that diocese period. Let them go to the Justice of the Peace if they want what God has not instituted.
 
Traditional Episcopalians and traditional Anglicans are close to Roman Catholics in a lot of ways. Unfortunately, however, there are Roman Catholics who support SS marriage. For one example, there is a Roman Catholic candidate for US President who has performed a SS marriage ceremony and says that he is a practicing Irish Catholic. For another example, I get an alumni magazine from a Roman Catholic college, and oftentimes it congratulates its graduates/alumni who have entered into a SS marriage.
 
Providing pastoral care for those in illicit unions ought not to include blessing such unions. But the Episcopal church has chosen its own path.
 
He got in as bishop before they began screening for this issue. My guess is that no new bishops are appointed who do not take an explicit stand on this issue, towards the TEC position.

The position of TEC conservatives a few decades ago was:
" I can do more in this position for good, here in the inside, than I could if I leave."
“There are many who think like me, especially young people, who would be discouraged if I leave”.

If this argument carried any weight decades ago, that ship has sailed long ago. Those good pastors who remain make it easier for faithful Christian laity to linger on in this particular denomination that they can’t influence, and may be getting a bad formation.

The danger for orthodox young people who linger on in a good parish or diocese, but a heterodox denomination, is that they will still be there when the liberal replacement comes. They notice false teaching less and less as it becomes normalized.

So pray for this bishop, but also pray for those other faithful members who may have been delaying a tough decision.
 
Last edited:
And this has what to do with the article in question?

But somehow I knew there would be a poster who would attempt to equate this bishop’s stand ‘against his church’s doctrine and practises with ‘Catholics’ who go against their church’s doctrine. I just knew.
 
The Episcopal Church was a gloriously beautiful castle. Built on sand.
 
Love is one of the few conservative Episcopalian bishops left. It appears that the “broad tent” is going closer towards collapse.
 
stpurl said:
And this has what to do with the article in question?
Click to expand...
This being a RC forum, it is an observation that in some respects, some Episcopalians and Catholics are not that far apart in what they believe.
 
Meaning that it has nothing to do with the article referencing the Episcopal Church and its adherents.

So you do not address the Episcopalian bishop, the doctrine and teachings, or the incident itself. Instead you observe, with regard to a teaching which is upheld by Episcopalians that some reject the teaching, and the very same teaching which is rejected by the Catholics is ‘upheld’ by some of them.

And that, supposedly, is meant to show ‘Catholics and Episcopalians are not that far apart in what they believe’.

Epic fail.

What it shows is that individuals, whether Catholic, Episcopalian, or ‘everybody else’ can choose to reject their faith beliefs to some degree.

That whole ‘free will’ thing.

Does the Episcopal Church uphold same sex marriage? Yes or no please.

So an observant Episcopalian would uphold the teaching, right?

Does the Catholic Church reject that ‘same sex’ teaching the Episcopal church upholds? Yes or no please.

So an observant Catholic would join in rejecting that teaching of the Episcopal Church, right?

You know I see the political ads where Joe Republican intones, “I’ve been a lifelong pro life republican but I support Joe Biden.”

And where Jane Democrat tweets, “I’m a lifelong Democrat who’s pro life and I support Donald Trump”.

Gee, by your logic Joe and Jane sure aren’t far apart in what they believe are they? Joe is rejecting his party candidate. Jane is rejecting her party candidate. Funny then how, based on their acceptance of what their party REJECTS, they actually wind up supporting completely different platforms, and not being at all ‘close’ in what they believe.
 
stpurl said:
And that, supposedly, is meant to show ‘Catholics and Episcopalians are not that far apart in what they believe’.
Click to expand...
You have misquoted what I wrote, cropping out the word “some” and leaving out the phrase “in some respects”. Your quote is not accurate.
 
So, is he going to start his own traditional Anglican church, or join the RCs?

Ironic that his name would have to be “Love”.
 
Last edited:
Or join the Continuum , in some Church.

Or join the ACNA, which was formed by former traditional/conservative Episcopal bishops.

Trend has been to consolidate the Continuum, not expand it, of late.
 
The Anglicans set sail on a voyage in the 16th century. They plotted a course which was only a few degrees off, which hardly seemed to matter, so wide is the ocean and so long the journey, with plenty of time to make up. They ignored the stern warning of the navigator and sailed on. And now, thousands of miles and several centuries later, instead of making landfall in a rich country, they are shipwrecked on reefs.

And that, my friends, is why the details of doctrine matter.
 
Last edited:
If the Catholic Church did things based on the popular vote of a committee, we’d have already split into 2 or more churches already.

Which is why Jesus set up the Church the way he did, with a Pope.
 
Maximian said:
The Anglicans set sail on a voyage in the 16th century. They plotted a course which was only a few degrees off, which hardly seemed to matter, so wide is the ocean and so long the journey, with plenty of time to make up. They ignored the stern warning of the navigator and sailed on. And now, thousands of miles and several centuries later, instead of making landfall in a rich country, they are shipwrecked on reefs.

And that, my friends, is why the details of doctrine matter.
Click to expand...
A very good analogy. A seemingly pedantic variation in course over a long distance results in landing in a far off country.

I’m kind of surprised people like this even exist but I guess a few decades ago when he was getting started things didn’t appear off.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
I’m kind of surprised people like this even exist
Click to expand...
So am I. As an anglo-Catholic who resisted bitterly coming over to Rome, even I realised that the “ordination” of women represented the abandonment of the immutability of principles and pulled the bottom card out from the whole house of cards.
 
Maximian said:
The Anglicans set sail on a voyage in the 16th century. They plotted a course which was only a few degrees off, which hardly seemed to matter, so wide is the ocean and so long the journey, with plenty of time to make up. They ignored the stern warning of the navigator and sailed on. And now, thousands of miles and several centuries later, instead of making landfall in a rich country, they are shipwrecked on reefs.

And that, my friends, is why the details of doctrine matter.
Click to expand...
In response to the last sentence, some would agree but argue thus:

"The RCC began to abuse its theological authority by intentionally extending it to political arenas, and innocently, overdefining doctrine. This, along with over emphasis on private revelation, brought Catholicism into positions that are compatible with Christianity but not the only compatible ones.

“Anglicanism, especially in 1960, expresses both fidelity to the essential core Tradition, as well as Loving acceptance of compatible differences in non essentials within Anglicanism, as well as in other communions. This is still possible today though it may be necessary to move outside the TEC itself.”
(End)

This isn’t my view, but I hope a fair summary of the Continuum and ACNA positions. If I weren’t lacking in this area, I would write more about liturgy.
 
The Anglicans’ first mistake was, in the name of political expediency, to repudiate papal authority in the matter if Henry VIII’s annulment.

When the Crown handed most of its powers over to Parliament, it thereby handed the governance of the CofE to a democratic parliament whose members were assumed to be anglicans. But as it became possible for non anglicans to become members of parliament, it became obvious that the CofE should either be disestablished or given its own government. Hence the creation of the General Synod.

The General Synod seemed to work at first, in the age when most of the people of England were serious anglicans. But as attendance fell, the disadvantages of democracy became apparent. It was easy for a few politically minded people to pack parochial Church councils and get themselves elected to the Synod. As a matter of fact some took inspiration from the way the various Vatican II committees were packed by the reformists.

Naturally, as the CofE was a national church, outsiders still felt they had a dog in the fight and it became impossible to resist the onslaught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top