OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 11:00:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the draw of Anglicanism?  (Read 3846 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jesusisthekey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« on: February 10, 2013, 11:34:21 AM »

Well I have a limited, but still somewhat, knowledge of the Anglican Church and I am wondering: what is the draw of the Anglican Church?
Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 11:47:40 AM »

I was told that as a non-Anglican it would never make sense. And I must confess to finding Anglicanism truly an incomprehensible mystery, although characters such as York's John Sentamu have certain appeal.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,543


Leave that no-account Oogie-Boogie out of this!


« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2013, 11:49:46 AM »

Beyond the Queen's subjects, none.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
jesusisthekey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2013, 12:20:39 PM »

Because of things like "Divine Right" some of the people during that time literally thought that the King/Queen was a representative of God and thus things like the Monarch leading the Church made sense for some of them. But now that we look at it, the whole notion doesn't make sense to me.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2013, 12:27:33 PM »

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer?  Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jesusisthekey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2013, 12:28:33 PM »

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer?  Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Well I mean everything all together....Like the history of it.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2013, 12:29:30 PM »

Here are some threads from Anglicans/Episcopalians which might be of interest to you...

Why I Am Also An Episcopalian
Why, Keble, are Well grounded and studied Anglicans on the list of non-converts
THe Substance of Anglicanism
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2013, 12:32:13 PM »

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer?  Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Well I mean everything all together....Like the history of it.

There is a thread or two on the forum in which this is discussed and, I will admit, I was part of them.  I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.  

I can give you some information here, if you like. It would be helpful if you could tell how much you already know or have seen/experienced as a place to start.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2013, 12:33:39 PM »

Thank you, Asteriktos.  I know that there is at least another that I think was when Sloga wanted to know more and I was part of that one.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2013, 12:36:04 PM »

Is this the thread?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2013, 12:38:11 PM »

Is this the thread?

That's the one.  Thank you very much for linking to it.   Smiley
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2013, 09:10:59 PM »

Conservative anglicanism, like of the NT Wright or CS Lewis Variety I can see what the genuine attraction to it is. but at the same time communion with Liberal anglicanism and the allowance of Homosexual marriage and etc I can't fathom how it could be attractable.
Logged

Thank you.
leap of faith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 120



« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2013, 10:58:18 AM »

Conservative anglicanism, like of the NT Wright or CS Lewis Variety I can see what the genuine attraction to it is. but at the same time communion with Liberal anglicanism and the allowance of Homosexual marriage and etc I can't fathom how it could be attractable.

I agree.  Coming from the protestant tradition, I can see how many would be attracted to conservative Anglicanism because the style of worship falls within their comfort zone.  It contains some of the outward liturgical elements in worship, but not so much that people struggle with it.  It's what I would call a "tweener" worship service. While I was searching this is how it was for me, anyway.  In the end, I could not deny the claims of the Orthodox Church and knew that if I became Anglican it was merely a matter of time before I would not be satisfied.  And so, I stepped outside of my "comfort zone" and committed myself to Orthodoxy.

My mother is a conservative Anglican.  She and my father (May his memory be eternal) became Anglican later in life.  My father commented that he loved the liturgy.  (They did not know of the Orthodox Church.)  My mom attended her first Orthodox liturgy this past Sunday, out of love for her daughter (me) in order to further understand the Orthodox Church.  She commented that she saw many people from her Anglican church who had converted.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2013, 09:28:49 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2013, 09:47:53 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,644



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2013, 09:50:59 PM »

"All the glitter, none of the guilt."
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2013, 09:54:37 PM »

"All the glitter, none of the guilt."

Are you saying that about JamesR, me, Anglicans, or yourself? Cause I could see someone saying it about any of those four...  Wink
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2013, 09:57:45 PM »

"All the glitter, none of the guilt."

Are you saying that about JamesR, me, Anglicans, or yourself? Cause I could see someone saying it about any of those four...  Wink

+1
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
leap of faith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 120



« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2013, 10:00:58 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

How very kind of you.  How's the view from up there?  This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church.  I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this.  Surely not thanks to them.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2013, 10:09:20 PM »

How very kind of you.  How's the view from up there?

What's that supposed to mean? I'm only expressing what I believe is the truth. I'm even harsher on myself and my own background prior to conversion than I am others. I didn't know telling the truth was wrong.

Quote
This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church.

Then they are not worthy; there really is no way to put it. The reason it drives people away is because they are not fully committed yet to the truth; they want to have one hand on Orthodoxy and one hand on the front door outside. The Scriptures say that it is better to be cold than to be lukewarm; if they aren't going to fully commit themselves, then they can leave. If they have fully committed themselves, then it shouldn't bother them so much. I converted to the Orthodox faith 100% against the advice and approval of everyone around me and didn't look back; if someone as wretched as me could do it, then certainly those in better circumstances could do it as well. 

Quote
I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this.  Surely not thanks to them.

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
icecreamsandwich
Likely perpetual neophyte
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 144



« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2013, 10:27:02 PM »

How very kind of you.  How's the view from up there?

What's that supposed to mean? I'm only expressing what I believe is the truth. I'm even harsher on myself and my own background prior to conversion than I am others. I didn't know telling the truth was wrong.

Quote
This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church.

Then they are not worthy; there really is no way to put it. The reason it drives people away is because they are not fully committed yet to the truth; they want to have one hand on Orthodoxy and one hand on the front door outside. The Scriptures say that it is better to be cold than to be lukewarm; if they aren't going to fully commit themselves, then they can leave. If they have fully committed themselves, then it shouldn't bother them so much. I converted to the Orthodox faith 100% against the advice and approval of everyone around me and didn't look back; if someone as wretched as me could do it, then certainly those in better circumstances could do it as well. 

Quote
I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this.  Surely not thanks to them.

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?

If that's the case why is the tradition to have a catechumenate period of up to 3 years? You can be convinced logically, but still need to learn the rules and customs of the Church, her teachings, etc. For some that can come quickly, for some, more slowly, but having *some* time to adjust to it is (in my experience) helpful, and no doubt in the experience of others. Look at it this way - say you're not religious, and go to an Orthodox Church one weekend, and are baptised + chrismated the next: what then? You still need to learn to fast, pray, etc.
Logged

Please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm still learning as I go along.
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2013, 11:16:24 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

There is some of that in the anglicna church but one has to recognise there are really two factions in anglicanism and one will eventually drive the other out. NT Wright and CS Lewis are the best of what anglicanism has to offer even if I don't agree with them perfectly.

And is a liturgy like this really so fake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UeOJYAphqw

Sure it has a piano, but what is particularly fake about this? There is good to look for in these churches and we can't simply paint them with a broad brush.
Logged

Thank you.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2013, 11:32:19 PM »

And is a liturgy like this really so fake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UeOJYAphqw

Sure it has a piano, but what is particularly fake about this? There is good to look for in these churches and we can't simply paint them with a broad brush.

Thanks for sharing that, and I agree - high church Anglicanism has a lot of beauty to it, regardless of low church and liberal Anglicanism.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2013, 12:25:04 AM »

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?

You're still in a journey ... like the rest of us ...

You've never been married or in a serious relationship.  You haven't gone to college.  You haven't had to support yourself with a job.  You may think the Orthodox Church is great and to another person the Church is torment.  Your hyperdoxy is not helping.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2013, 12:26:17 AM »

Speaking for myself alone, a lot of the appeal was the idea of the via media, that I could have my cake and eat it, too. There was something that seemed truly catholic in the idea that one could have a church where more traditional churches could exist side by side with more Evangelical expressions of Christianity. For someone raised in that most Evangelical of American denominations seeking something more traditional and sacramental the Anglican Communion seemed like the perfect thing- a way to practice and believe in the sacraments while not having to say necessarily that my Evangelical family was completely wrong.

In other words, I went for the fudge.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2013, 12:28:58 AM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism?  You used the word, what is the context?
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2013, 12:42:41 AM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism?  You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2013, 12:57:09 AM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism?  You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.

You just make this stuff up as you go, don't you? Smiley  police
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2013, 01:00:58 AM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism?  You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.

Rewriting your the bolded clause: Liberal youth of the West who think with their feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.  Whose logic?  Where's the logic in the Orthodox Church and where's the logic in Anglicanism or any other Christian group?
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2013, 01:03:22 AM »

Whose logic?

The logic if Scholasticism

Quote
Where's the logic in the Orthodox Church

We can logically conclude it's true via Apostolic succession which can be confirmed historically.

Quote
...and where's the logic in Anglicanism or any other Christian group?

There isn't
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2013, 01:15:03 AM »

Whose logic?

The logic if Scholasticism

Thank Aristotle and Plato for that one.

Quote
Where's the logic in the Orthodox Church

We can logically conclude it's true via Apostolic succession which can be confirmed historically.

Someone told me that all history was bunk and didn't believe in any religion.  Not everyone sees Apostolic succession as logical.

Quote
...and where's the logic in Anglicanism or any other Christian group?

There isn't

There has to be for people to worship in Anglican Churches (or any other religion).

Your experience of the Orthodox faith is not like anyone else's.  You converted fairly quickly, as a reaction to your domestic situation.  A 16 year old transgendered person may feel rejected by the Orthodox Church and accepted by the Anglican Church.  Some Orthodox priests deny Holy Communion to women who don't wear headcoverings and the Anglican Church offers the chalice to all.  Where's the logic?   Huh
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2013, 12:38:30 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

"Pseudo-liturgicalism"?  Would you please explain what you mean by that term? 

Also would you please post on what your personal experiences or knowledge of anything in the Episcopal Church (U.S.) or any other part of the Anglican Communion are that you have to use as a basis for such a statement?
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2013, 12:39:42 PM »

Whose logic?

The logic if Scholasticism

Quote
Where's the logic in the Orthodox Church

We can logically conclude it's true via Apostolic succession which can be confirmed historically.

Quote
...and where's the logic in Anglicanism or any other Christian group?

There isn't

There is.  I could leave it at that, but instead I will ask what you mean please?
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2013, 12:40:59 PM »

Well I have a limited, but still somewhat, knowledge of the Anglican Church and I am wondering: what is the draw of the Anglican Church?

God reaches some people through it and they worship Him there.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2013, 03:55:08 PM »

I was raised in the Episcopal Church, so I didn't exactly choose to become an Anglican, but I was an active Episcopalian for over 40 years before becoming Orthodox.  Anglicanism has changed a lot in my lifetime, but the tensions that are currently stretching the Anglican communion to the breaking point were implicitly there from the time that the Church of England (CofE) broke with Rome in the mid-16th century.  During the reign of Elizabeth I, there was an intentional and largely successful effort (for awhile) to make the CofE as comprehensive as possible of different doctrinal positions ranging from Zwinglianism to Calvinism to non-papal Catholicism, while at the same time maintaining liturgical uniformity via the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).  It has to be admitted that, whatever its theological shortcomings (and there are major ones from an Orthodox perspective), the BCP in its classic form is a work of liturgical and literary genius.  The King James Version of the Bible (translated by Anglican divines early in the 17th century) has been and still is a powerful source of spiritual edification and inspiration to Christians of many different traditions.  Likewise, Anglicanism developed a magnificent treasury of hymnody which is also drawn on by Western Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants as integral parts of their worship.  I think it is fair to say that Anglicanism has made invaluable contributions to the development of worship in the English language.  Rome has recently given official recognition to this by erecting Anglican-use ordinariates in several countries.  Traditional Anglican worship, whether high, middle, broad, or low, is simultaneously majestic and restrained.  But since the late 19th century the old uniformity of Anglican worship has been breaking down as the various theological strains within Anglicanism have sought to express themselves more distinctively through different forms of worship.  At the same time the various theological traditions within Anglicanism have diversified even further, to the point that it has become difficult, if not impossible, for certain groups of Anglicans to remain in communion with each other.  It is a sad, but perhaps inevitable, development.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 03:56:57 PM by James2 » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2013, 04:52:57 PM »

I would like to thank those who have written posts saying that there have been some good things happened in or came from the Anglican Communion.  

 Smiley
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 04:56:50 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2013, 05:24:15 PM »

And is a liturgy like this really so fake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UeOJYAphqw

Sure it has a piano, but what is particularly fake about this? There is good to look for in these churches and we can't simply paint them with a broad brush.

Thanks for sharing that, and I agree - high church Anglicanism has a lot of beauty to it, regardless of low church and liberal Anglicanism.

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong.  I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2013, 05:30:43 PM »

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong.  I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was effectively saying I dislike liberal Anglicanism.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2013, 05:46:20 PM »

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong.  I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was effectively saying I dislike liberal Anglicanism.

What do you mean by "liberal Anglicanism?"  Do you mean only those who go as far as Bishop Spong, or are you including the large bulk of the Episcopal Church?  And why exactly should you dislike "liberal Anglicanism" any more than you do conservative Anglicanism?  From the perspective of the Orthodox Church, neither group is the Church.  One is no more or less close to being the Church than the other; both are totally outside of it.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2013, 05:53:47 PM »

I think also that it should be understood that the high church-mid-low church are one area of variation that does not equate necessarily with political views, social views etc.  Also that the "bones" as it were, of all of the various "levels" are the same as in the structure of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Services and other texts along with the Bible (which for us does include the Apocrypha).
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2013, 08:45:09 PM »

I think also that it should be understood that the high church-mid-low church are one area of variation that does not equate necessarily with political views, social views etc.  Also that the "bones" as it were, of all of the various "levels" are the same as in the structure of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Services and other texts along with the Bible (which for us does include the Apocrypha).

I realize, which is why I meant "low" and "liberal" as two separate things. There are plenty of conservative low churchers, and liberal high churchers that I'm aware of.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 08:57:55 PM by Nephi » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2013, 08:57:41 PM »

What do you mean by "liberal Anglicanism?"  Do you mean only those who go as far as Bishop Spong, or are you including the large bulk of the Episcopal Church?  And why exactly should you dislike "liberal Anglicanism" any more than you do conservative Anglicanism?  From the perspective of the Orthodox Church, neither group is the Church.  One is no more or less close to being the Church than the other; both are totally outside of it.

I mean "liberal Anglicanism" in a loose sense to encompass those that are socially and/or theologically liberal. So I suppose those like Bishop Spong as well as the large majority of the TEC.

I don't think a group needs to be part of the Church or not for me to like or dislike certain elements. For example, I don't like the groups that encourage extreme liturgical abuse in the Roman Church, but that doesn't mean they need to be part of the Orthodox Church for me to dislike them. That said, I don't take a hard position that Anglicans (or Roman Catholics) are absolutely outside the Church - I prefer the more vague Orthodox ecclesiology that arises on here sometimes.

Also, I'm not trying to being offensive or disrespectful. I'm sorry if I came across that way.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2013, 06:18:10 PM »

I guess the draw of Anglicanism for me was that, at its best, it has sought to get back to the consensus of the Church from the first five centuries. Along the way, I have also admired the writings of NT Wright and CS Lewis, of which I read much on my journey.

Of course, Anglicanism as an instituion has not always been at its best, as within its walls there have been diverse factions/forces threatening to pull it apart.  However, for me, I idenitify with what I see as being the central expression (not too high, too low, or too hazy) of Anglicanism, and that is in the reformed catholic doctrine of the BCP and the Articles along with the theological insights of Hooker and the Caroline Divines, as well as the beauty of the KJV, hymnody, liturgy, etc. 
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2013, 06:45:55 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 06:46:42 PM by Rowan » Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2013, 07:03:50 PM »

The draw is simple.

You can be gay and Christian at the same time.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2013, 07:27:53 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2013, 07:35:37 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,763


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2013, 07:36:35 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,887



« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2013, 07:47:46 PM »

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

I actually agree with this. It describes fairly well why I am somewhat interested in Anglicanism.

I must admit though that an idea of pipe-smoking elderly men with their tweed jackets and British accents contribute to the interest too. angel
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 08:00:45 PM by Alpo » Logged

Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2013, 08:17:04 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2013, 08:22:57 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.


Liberalism isn't synonymous with Anglicanism, but anyway, but people wouldn't do it unless they thought they were right.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2013, 08:24:32 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

I doubt Anglicans view their Church as "false" (whatever that means). As for liberalism, well there are various shades of that, but isn't that one of the things they pride themselves on: their tolerance of a diversity of positions? No, really, I'm asking, isn't it?  Huh  As for claiming that they "KNOW" it's wrong, let me learn you something: people can be sincere, look at the same evidence as you, and come to a different conclusion. I know, it seems impossible, but it happens.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2013, 08:51:52 PM »

Rowan Williams posting here now?

Cool.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2013, 09:20:56 PM »

Rowan Williams posting here now?

Cool.

Could be Mr. Bean, too.  Wink laugh
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,985


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2013, 09:31:33 PM »

Out of the mouths of babes.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2013, 10:36:00 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

I doubt Anglicans view their Church as "false" (whatever that means). As for liberalism, well there are various shades of that, but isn't that one of the things they pride themselves on: their tolerance of a diversity of positions? No, really, I'm asking, isn't it?  Huh

That's been my limited experience--"unity in diversity".
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2013, 09:33:40 AM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

"Why am I doing this? Because I'm a villain. It's pure and simple."
- Nicky Holiday

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »

The draw is simple.

You can be gay and Christian at the same time.

That's not really an issue. The issue is those who want to be "actively gay".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2013, 09:36:34 AM »

Conservative anglicanism, like of the NT Wright or CS Lewis Variety I can see what the genuine attraction to it is. but at the same time communion with Liberal anglicanism and the allowance of Homosexual marriage and etc I can't fathom how it could be attractable.

Those are pretty much my thoughts on the matter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2013, 10:13:31 AM »

I'm even harsher on myself and my own background prior to conversion than I am others.

You take a harsh view of your own background? How shockingly unusual!

 Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2013, 10:14:16 AM »

 I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

There's also ACNA.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2013, 12:29:51 PM »

 I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

There's also ACNA.

And a plethora of other continuing Anglican jurisdictions, some of which are in communion with each other.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2013, 01:15:42 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2013, 01:18:13 PM »

 I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

There's also ACNA.

And a plethora of other continuing Anglican jurisdictions, some of which are in communion with each other.

Exactly.  I came into Anglicanism via the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church) and now am in ACNA (since they actually have a mission parish in the town where I live).  I've never actually been an Episcopalian.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2013, 02:51:49 PM »

Well I have a limited, but still somewhat, knowledge of the Anglican Church and I am wondering: what is the draw of the Anglican Church?

I was Episcopal (I joined an Anglo-Catholic parish) before I became Orthodox. Why? to make the long story short, when I was still protestant I was heavily influenced by the Convergence movement. I also still had a continual Anglican turned Anabaptist in my head. And I wanted to follow in the footsteps of my Orthodox Christian mentor and his mentor who were both raised as Baptists, then they became Episcopal, and after that Orthodox. And so I said to myself "cool! I think I'll do the same".

I saw how Anglo-protestant high high Episcopalians (Anglo-Catholics) were scared of Orthodoxy's exotic and different culture, as well as their fear of being absorbed(they wanted to remain independent and different/Anglo). For some reason I embraced their fears......even-though I'm not Anglo at all! So why did I have such fears? But anyway, I eventually got over it.

That's the short version.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 03:00:21 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2013, 03:08:22 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him? 

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #66 on: February 21, 2013, 03:09:46 PM »

The draw is simple.

You can be gay and Christian at the same time.

That's not really an issue. The issue is those who want to be "actively gay".

Uh huh...
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2013, 03:57:00 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him? 

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

It's not nonsense - it's a sad reality.  It's only a matter of time before performing gay "weddings" becomes mandatory for all Episcopal parishes.  The same thing happened with the "ordination" of women.  It was first passed by General Convention as a merely "permissive" canonical change, allowing it to happen where it was desired, but not requiring it throughout the church.  Within a generation it became obligatory for all parishes to accept the ministrations of female "bishops" and for all dioceses to "ordain" women.  Likewise with prayer book revision.  Parishes that wanted to keep using the 1928 BCP were told they had to start using the 1979 BCP.  At the same time more liberal parishes were allowed to do modern liturgies not even in the 1979 BCP.  Liberal fascism at work.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #68 on: February 21, 2013, 04:02:37 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #69 on: February 21, 2013, 04:15:16 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2013, 05:04:11 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

Well, it's nice that you can conduct these discussions in a civilized manner, but the fact that such an issue as communicating the unbaptized is even up for discussion is what is so disturbing.  This wasn't much of an issue when I was still Episcopalian (over 13 years ago), but it sure is now.  This was brought home to me at my mother's funeral last year at an Episcopal parish that is by no means on the liberal fringe.  There was a notice in the service leaflet that anyone who wanted to could receive communion.  They've taken inclusiveness to the point of meaninglessness.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 21, 2013, 05:13:09 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

But you'd be surprised how quickly an argument can turn when the person argued with actually has some level of authority. More than a few priests and even bishops have found themselves brought to the tender mercies of tEc's Gestapo, not for any misconduct such as sexual abuse or embezzlement, but simply for voicing disagreement over the direction the organization happens to be taking- charges usually brought about by sensitive and loving liberal parishoners, not other priests (Anglican priests being engaged in these debates since seminary). It is a sad state of affairs when charges of "abandoning the faith" are brought against a cleric, not because one has denied the Trinity or Incarnation, but because one happens to feel that the Denis "canon" was a horrible abuse of the authority of the Episcopalians hierarchy.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,048


"My god is greater."


« Reply #72 on: February 21, 2013, 05:23:36 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

The Episcopal Church already has an agreement of mutual recognition/ concelebration (Churches Uniting In Christ) with several other churches (such as UCC and UMC) which have had open communion for years, so what's the point of retaining closed communion in tEC?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 05:24:25 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #73 on: February 21, 2013, 05:58:12 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

Well, it's nice that you can conduct these discussions in a civilized manner, but the fact that such an issue as communicating the unbaptized is even up for discussion is what is so disturbing.  This wasn't much of an issue when I was still Episcopalian (over 13 years ago), but it sure is now.  This was brought home to me at my mother's funeral last year at an Episcopal parish that is by no means on the liberal fringe.  There was a notice in the service leaflet that anyone who wanted to could receive communion.  They've taken inclusiveness to the point of meaninglessness.

Why is it terrible that this is a question?  One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #74 on: February 21, 2013, 06:00:34 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

The Episcopal Church already has an agreement of mutual recognition/ concelebration (Churches Uniting In Christ) with several other churches (such as UCC and UMC) which have had open communion for years, so what's the point of retaining closed communion in tEC?

Is the question: Why should the Episcopal Church not commune the unbaptized, since it already communes members of several other churches?

If so, then the answer is because the Episcopal Church believes members of those churches who have been baptized are truly baptized.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #75 on: February 21, 2013, 06:10:57 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

Well, it's nice that you can conduct these discussions in a civilized manner, but the fact that such an issue as communicating the unbaptized is even up for discussion is what is so disturbing.  This wasn't much of an issue when I was still Episcopalian (over 13 years ago), but it sure is now.  This was brought home to me at my mother's funeral last year at an Episcopal parish that is by no means on the liberal fringe.  There was a notice in the service leaflet that anyone who wanted to could receive communion.  They've taken inclusiveness to the point of meaninglessness.

Why is it terrible that this is a question?  One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma.

If everything is up for grabs, I just don't see the point in belonging.  Even in purely human terms, an organization needs to have a common purpose to which its members assent.  As a divine society, the church has to be faithful to revelation, and doctrine comes from revelation, not from opinion polls.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #76 on: February 21, 2013, 06:14:19 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

Well, it's nice that you can conduct these discussions in a civilized manner, but the fact that such an issue as communicating the unbaptized is even up for discussion is what is so disturbing.  This wasn't much of an issue when I was still Episcopalian (over 13 years ago), but it sure is now.  This was brought home to me at my mother's funeral last year at an Episcopal parish that is by no means on the liberal fringe.  There was a notice in the service leaflet that anyone who wanted to could receive communion.  They've taken inclusiveness to the point of meaninglessness.

Why is it terrible that this is a question?  One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma.

If everything is up for grabs, I just don't see the point in belonging.  Even in purely human terms, an organization needs to have a common purpose to which its members assent.  As a divine society, the church has to be faithful to revelation, and doctrine comes from revelation, not from opinion polls.

Yes, because all doctrine was delivered by the Spirit to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost and has remained unchanged from that day forth.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #77 on: February 21, 2013, 06:15:54 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

The Episcopal Church already has an agreement of mutual recognition/ concelebration (Churches Uniting In Christ) with several other churches (such as UCC and UMC) which have had open communion for years, so what's the point of retaining closed communion in tEC?

Is the question: Why should the Episcopal Church not commune the unbaptized, since it already communes members of several other churches?

If so, then the answer is because the Episcopal Church believes members of those churches who have been baptized are truly baptized.

I think that Iconodule's point may be that since the Episcopal Church is in communion with churches that commune the unbaptized, then it might as well do the same.
Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #78 on: February 21, 2013, 06:16:45 PM »

JamesRottnek, what is the draw of Anglicanism?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2013, 06:48:35 PM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

On the parish level we're doing just fine.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

Tell that to the good people of South Carolina.

Exactly.  And Fort Worth, and Quincy, and San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh . . .

The liberal faction that has come to dominate the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will brook no interference with its radical agenda.

Thou speakest the truth.

Oh really?  Then why are there parishes in my diocese that will not do blessings of gay unions?  And why are there parishes that will?  And why can my parish priest (who adamantly believes in gay marriage) have a good relationship with parish priests who disagree with him?  

Thou speakest nonsense because thou knowest not of what ye speak.

I included these two quotes together, because they seem to be saying the same thing. Is everything hunky-dory on the parish level, just because a few parishes are allowed to hold on to some semblance of orthodoxy, so long as they don't make waves for those parishes that don't? Were I still Episcopalian, should I be comforted by the fact that Fr Smith is still allowed to say "No" to a same sex blessing, so long as he understands that any of his parishoners that might wish one can just go down to Fr Jones, then show up next Sunday to Fr Smith's parish like nothing is wrong?

What would happen to Fr Smith if, following his beliefs about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, he denied Communion to those who went against his wishes and beliefs about such a matter? A priest who does not have the authority to guard the chalice is no priest, he is lower than a Kindergarten teacher- who at the least can keep Ricky away from the snack table for refusing to put away his paste and construction paper.

James, I am glad your priest can have good relations with priests with opposing view-points- it would be a sad sign indeed if he couldn't. Out of all my friends- save those I have made at coffee hour- I am the only Orthodox Christian. It would take a certain kind of egotism to base one's friendly relationships with others on whether or not all one's friends agree 100% on everything- I would be lonely indeed if I based my friendship off of belief, or taste in music (at some points in my life far more important than belief- to this day I might not be able to maintain a friendship with someone who plays top 40 24/7, not that I think it makes them a bad person, just it would make it very hard to be in a room with them for more than a minute), or taste in video games. But, I would be a very bad friend indeed if, believing in the liberty of the human being to smoke, I went into the home of a non-smoker and lit a pipe in their living room, and insisted that they be okay with it.

For a little personal history- I actually used to be comforted in being a liberal Christian worshipping at Episcopalian churches, believing that it was all okay so long as we all lived under the big tent. What I saw was not intolerance from the conservatives, but intolerance toward the conservatives. I was thoroughly comfortable being completely post-modern "Well, that's your point of view, and this is mine" until I saw that those who shared my point of view held on to their smug sense of superiority for their enlightened viewpoints, witnessed the Imperialism and closet-racism of the American and Canadian organizations to their African and Global South brethren (and don't talk to me about the missions to Africa- black people are only okay so long as they take the more civilized white man's charity and don't complain about the fact that the White Man just peed in his drinking water). I left Episcopalianism behind, not because of gay marriage and bishops (which at the time I was completely fine with) but because of lawsuits, because of the abuses of constitutional and canonical laws toward those who dared speak against the regime, against a certain Prime B's high handed and illegal tactics. I found in the Liberal wing of Episcopalianism, not tolerance, but intolerance of the worst kind, a belief in the "rightness" of their liberal beliefs that justified any wrong that would silence dissenters.

On the parish level, everything's fine- so long as one does not seek to reassert the right belief or course-correct a community that is headed swiftly for the shoals of the Unitarians.

This is just simply not my experience.  I've had discussions with members of my parish over whether or not Communion should be given to the unbaptized.  I've defended the requirement of the Episcopal Church (admittedly a requirement that is far from being followed everywhere) that only the baptized may approach the chalice, and many of my fellow parishioners adamantly disagree with me.  We've certainly gotten into rather heated discussions about that issue (or others on which I take a more traditional stand) but when the argument ends, there is no ill-will or hurt feelings on either side.

Well, it's nice that you can conduct these discussions in a civilized manner, but the fact that such an issue as communicating the unbaptized is even up for discussion is what is so disturbing.  This wasn't much of an issue when I was still Episcopalian (over 13 years ago), but it sure is now.  This was brought home to me at my mother's funeral last year at an Episcopal parish that is by no means on the liberal fringe.  There was a notice in the service leaflet that anyone who wanted to could receive communion.  They've taken inclusiveness to the point of meaninglessness.

Why is it terrible that this is a question?  One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma.

If everything is up for grabs, I just don't see the point in belonging.  Even in purely human terms, an organization needs to have a common purpose to which its members assent.  As a divine society, the church has to be faithful to revelation, and doctrine comes from revelation, not from opinion polls.

Yes, because all doctrine was delivered by the Spirit to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost and has remained unchanged from that day forth.

Not just at Pentecost.  Jesus Himself taught the Apostles, and they were witnesses to His ministry and deeds.  They passed this doctrine along via Scripture and Tradition, and in its essentials it has remained unchanged, at least in the Orthodox Church.  As an individual you are free to question any of this, but I fail to see how an organization like the Episcopal Church can call itself a church with any integrity while it is jettisoning so many essential doctrines.  If you don't accept Christianity, fine, but don't claim you accept it while actively undermining it.  Go create a new religion that suits you and call it something else.  There's plenty of precedent for that in human history.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,048


"My god is greater."


« Reply #80 on: February 21, 2013, 08:13:38 PM »

I think that Iconodule's point may be that since the Episcopal Church is in communion with churches that commune the unbaptized, then it might as well do the same.

Thanks James. That is exactly my point. By maintaining full communion with these other churches, the Episcopal Church is by extension communing the unbaptized.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2013, 11:33:41 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #82 on: February 22, 2013, 12:47:39 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 22, 2013, 01:58:59 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


That might be partly my fault. As a former liberal Anglican, nothing sets me off more than hearing about how "loving and open" liberal Anglicans are compared to those close-minded bigots of denomination x.

I have a lot of love for the Anglican history- almost all the BCPs, the KJV, Hooker, C.S Lewis, some of the parishes I first attended after leaving my Southern Baptist childhood, and a large part of me still somewhat wishes that the idea of the via media could be true. But love and openness? I saw very little, and none from the quarters that preach it loudest.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 02:00:20 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Aaron M
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: nothing
Posts: 60


« Reply #84 on: February 22, 2013, 03:44:26 AM »

I am drawn to Anglicanism for much of the same noted directly above by FormerReformer (when he was Episcopalian, I take it) and some ways back by Doubting Thomas - the Book of Common Prayer (for me, 1928 and preceding versions though I've only browsed the 1662 online), then of course the KJV, and some of the earliest English-language Protestant choral music that (to me, no musician and ignorant of the technical distinctions) retained a good bit of the sombre old Catholic 'feel' like the anthems of Thomas Tallis, William Byrd (incidentally they were both Roman Catholic) and Orlando Gibbons.

Those things, lofty and beautiful, are somewhat superficial.  The primary draw is the clear place of Scripture as primary authority, inferred from the heavy quotations of Scripture, arguably Scripture-derived teachings and supposedly (I buy the line but won't defend it against Orthodox or Roman/other Catholic) *only* what can be proved from Scripture.  More than anything else, this might be a mere imaginary comfort that I tell myself, because probably every one believes and will rigorously defend things they believe that may make no use of the Bible whatever.

Some years ago it was most important to positively affirm a homosexual identity for myself - and with that, most absolutely the "behaviors" that go with that identity, and I chose to be baptized into the Episcopal church.  At the time I still had overall theologically conservative beliefs for a Protestant, and knew of the Spong etc. controversies, but thought the Episcopal Church broad enough that I might grow there.  But the briefest fascination there faded, and my beliefs have since gone fundamentalist-ic, as in mostly taking a literal view of the Bible because my simplistic mind cannot well deal with the complexities of where to differentiate literal or allegorical, historical or mythical interpretions.  I believe again that homosexual sex acts are sinful so can't use that affirmation for myself to stay in the Episcopal Church, and now look mostly to the Anglo-Catholic parts of the Anglican Continuum, because I still want the primacy of Scripture to stand as a distinctive.  If the Scriptures are not primary, then out of the many varied opinions of Church Fathers and modern theologians, any "Church" could theoretically change its values or teachings as on a whim (a broadly social or academic accepted whim).

The historical continuity (and to some extent then, integrity) of Anglicanism is compromised by the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion, among them the drift (personally I grievously lament it) between moral/socially conservative, low-church Evangelicals who I hear don't even utilize the Book of Common Prayer in worship services, and moral/socially liberal, High-Church Anglo-Catholics.  To me as of yet, this 'compromise' does not remove the draw of Anglicanism, I still think the elusive ideal of it is better (at least it reads and sounds better to me, by the Prayer Book) than what I'm not able to find out of Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (the two other options where I live.  Though the Continuing church I would go to is actually in Portland, OR, not Eugene where I live.)

Sorry for the longwindedness.  Did I convey the draw at all?
Logged
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #85 on: February 22, 2013, 05:06:31 AM »

The Church Fathers are consistent with Scripture. If they disagree with or teach contrary to Scripture, they they are not Church Fathers. This is part of what is called "Church Tradition".

Furthermore, as we live in a secular period in history, our ideas are largely shaped by various influences that might be contrary to Church Tradition. This means that our interpretations of Scriptural verses might not be as intended by the text, which is why we must always test our premise against the Church Fathers. To discount their wisdom is to suppose you are smarter or spiritually more gifted than they are. To me, this attitude is equivalent to the rebellion of the likes of Adam and Eve, and satan (in that it lacks humility).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #86 on: February 22, 2013, 08:04:03 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.
Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in. 

Good distinction. TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada constitute the extreme-liberal 5% of the Anglican Communion. Even the CoE, although its liberalness pales compared to them, is still the 'liberal half' of the Anglican Communion.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #87 on: February 22, 2013, 08:06:32 AM »

Why is it terrible that this is a question?  One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma.

We Catholics question our faith, too. In fact, I would be willing to bet that even the Orthodox do so.

Suppose however, that the result of my questioning is that I become Buddhist, and then I go around telling everyone that Catholicism isn't really Catholicism, Buddhism is Catholicism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2013, 10:17:37 AM »

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism

Amen!  Cool
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #89 on: February 22, 2013, 10:50:13 AM »

I am drawn to Anglicanism for much of the same noted directly above by FormerReformer (when he was Episcopalian, I take it) and some ways back by Doubting Thomas - the Book of Common Prayer (for me, 1928 and preceding versions though I've only browsed the 1662 online), then of course the KJV, and some of the earliest English-language Protestant choral music that (to me, no musician and ignorant of the technical distinctions) retained a good bit of the sombre old Catholic 'feel' like the anthems of Thomas Tallis, William Byrd (incidentally they were both Roman Catholic) and Orlando Gibbons.

Those things, lofty and beautiful, are somewhat superficial.  The primary draw is the clear place of Scripture as primary authority, inferred from the heavy quotations of Scripture, arguably Scripture-derived teachings and supposedly (I buy the line but won't defend it against Orthodox or Roman/other Catholic) *only* what can be proved from Scripture.  More than anything else, this might be a mere imaginary comfort that I tell myself, because probably every one believes and will rigorously defend things they believe that may make no use of the Bible whatever.

Some years ago it was most important to positively affirm a homosexual identity for myself - and with that, most absolutely the "behaviors" that go with that identity, and I chose to be baptized into the Episcopal church.  At the time I still had overall theologically conservative beliefs for a Protestant, and knew of the Spong etc. controversies, but thought the Episcopal Church broad enough that I might grow there.  But the briefest fascination there faded, and my beliefs have since gone fundamentalist-ic, as in mostly taking a literal view of the Bible because my simplistic mind cannot well deal with the complexities of where to differentiate literal or allegorical, historical or mythical interpretions.  I believe again that homosexual sex acts are sinful so can't use that affirmation for myself to stay in the Episcopal Church, and now look mostly to the Anglo-Catholic parts of the Anglican Continuum, because I still want the primacy of Scripture to stand as a distinctive.  If the Scriptures are not primary, then out of the many varied opinions of Church Fathers and modern theologians, any "Church" could theoretically change its values or teachings as on a whim (a broadly social or academic accepted whim).
The historical continuity (and to some extent then, integrity) of Anglicanism is compromised by the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion, among them the drift (personally I grievously lament it) between moral/socially conservative, low-church Evangelicals who I hear don't even utilize the Book of Common Prayer in worship services, and moral/socially liberal, High-Church Anglo-Catholics.  To me as of yet, this 'compromise' does not remove the draw of Anglicanism, I still think the elusive ideal of it is better (at least it reads and sounds better to me, by the Prayer Book) than what I'm not able to find out of Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism (the two other options where I live.  Though the Continuing church I would go to is actually in Portland, OR, not Eugene where I live.)

Sorry for the longwindedness.  Did I convey the draw at all?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your testimony.  It sounds like we've come to Anglicanism (at least in it's ideal intended expression) for similar reasons.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2013, 11:27:13 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2013, 11:29:18 AM »

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer?  Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Well I mean everything all together....Like the history of it.
everything all together....that's about as good a definition as any of "Anglican"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #92 on: February 23, 2013, 12:16:29 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.

As a rule the canons do not allow this. About all bishops can do to vestries is keep them from selling the property or hiring a particular priest.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 23, 2013, 12:21:18 AM »

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.
I recall with the new regime in NH, the new "bishop" couldn't co-exist with the Traditionalists (i.e., those who take the Bible at its word), and purged parish councils etc. of them.

As a rule the canons do not allow this. About all bishops can do to vestries is keep them from selling the property or hiring a particular priest.


*sigh* Would that the current leadership of tEc actually followed their canons or constitution.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 12:23:21 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2013, 12:54:45 AM »

Yes, because all doctrine was delivered by the Spirit to the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost and has remained unchanged from that day forth.

Without compelling evidence that it hasn't to think otherwise is baseless. You're left with "Well, it must've" and "I just don't believe it could have" (well, and  "I don't want it to have remained unchanged.") Neither which seems compatible with belief in a higher power, since both rely on the naturalistic idea of impermanence as the one immutable facts of reality, rather then the supernatural graces of God.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 01:02:13 AM by Jason.Wike » Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #95 on: February 27, 2013, 06:08:00 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #96 on: February 27, 2013, 06:09:59 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?
Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #97 on: February 27, 2013, 06:10:07 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


That might be partly my fault. As a former liberal Anglican, nothing sets me off more than hearing about how "loving and open" liberal Anglicans are compared to those close-minded bigots of denomination x.

I have a lot of love for the Anglican history- almost all the BCPs, the KJV, Hooker, C.S Lewis, some of the parishes I first attended after leaving my Southern Baptist childhood, and a large part of me still somewhat wishes that the idea of the via media could be true. But love and openness? I saw very little, and none from the quarters that preach it loudest.

I'm sorry this was your experience. For the record, I wasn't contrasting anyone's love and openness. I've been Orthodox, and they are some of the most loving people I have come across.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #98 on: February 27, 2013, 06:16:14 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #99 on: February 27, 2013, 06:43:50 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?
Logged
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #100 on: February 27, 2013, 07:01:06 PM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2013, 09:13:10 AM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong". 

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2013, 09:15:48 AM »

 I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

There's also ACNA.

I beg your pardon. You are correct that there is ACNA and several other groups.  I was writing in a general sense. 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2013, 11:40:29 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".  

With respect,

Ebor

Personally, when I hear (read) questions like "how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong?", I generally think it's best to just smile and not saying anything. (Granted, in this case our Orthodox brother was asking that about you (Anglicans) and not about us (Catholics), so it isn't really any of my business. Smiley)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 11:41:19 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #104 on: March 01, 2013, 11:50:09 PM »

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

Nice to finally meet you. Cheesy

(Sorry, I realize I'm coming in late on that.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #105 on: March 02, 2013, 12:10:45 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,428



« Reply #106 on: March 02, 2013, 09:05:46 PM »

Okay, let me re-phrase the question. How can you be Anglican even when you know that it is false and its liberalism is entirely at odds with the Bible, Patristsics and pretty much every Christian source their is? In other words, how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong? That seems very depressing.

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

I do not "know that it is false".  I could just reply with: It is not false.  But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?  Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".  

With respect,

Ebor

Personally, when I hear (read) questions like "how can you adhere to something that you deep down KNOW is wrong?", I generally think it's best to just smile and not saying anything. (Granted, in this case our Orthodox brother was asking that about you (Anglicans) and not about us (Catholics), so it isn't really any of my business. Smiley)

Well, just smiling and saying nothing is different vis a vis in person or on a forum, maybe.  Smiley 

In this case one might respond to find out what the other person really means and perhaps can correct a misconception or offer some correcting information.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #107 on: March 04, 2013, 11:48:51 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.

And here I find that argument silly, considering sex isn't "dirty". Messy doesn't always mean "dirty".

And the cultural and Biblical context of Romans 1:26-27 is important to keep in mind. There is more than one interpretation of this. In context, I'd say that St. Paul is talking about temple prostitution not faithful homosexual relationships.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #108 on: March 04, 2013, 11:46:46 PM »

   I'm interested in Anglicanism and seriously considering it, and I live in a relatively conservative Episcopal diocese (Central Florida).  I was an Orthodox catechumen at one time.  However, I agree with what many have said here.  Even though I am much more friendly to gays that the average evangelical-converting-to-Orthodoxy (basicly, I don't agree that all gay relationships are sinful or that gays necessarily need to repent and be "healed" of their gayness, however, I also don't agree with "queer politics" or uncritical acceptance of gay culture), I find the tone of some in the Episcopal Church regarding this issue, and sexuality in general, to be sub-Christian and more influenced by marxism and academic political correctness, there is a resentful victimhood to some of the political factions in the Episcopal church that demand control, not tolerance.  

  
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 11:48:55 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #109 on: March 05, 2013, 12:23:03 AM »

I gather that the point of this thread seems to have become (were it not so from the beginning) going off about how bad Anglicans are, rather than any real interest in the question.


Not how bad Anglicans are, but what a sorry state the Episcopal Church is in.  I don't think Anglicans are bad people - my wife is an Episcopalian, and she's a lot nicer than I am.

From an Orthodox perspective, most of the critiques of Anglicanism in this thread are right on target.  And I have to say, I've been very disappointed in the replies of Rowan and JamesRottnek from the Episcopalian side.  I'm sure you all can come up with something better than "I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests" (Rowan) or "One of the things that draws me to Anglicanism is precisely the fact that one can question any historical doctrine or dogma" (JamesRottnek).  Those are almost cliches of Episcopal life today, but they are a far cry from classical Anglicanism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum that they have provoked strong criticism.  The OP asked a fair question.  Let's hear a well-argued theological defense of Anglicanism - bring it on!

I don't feel the need to defend myself. God needs no defense.

So you're God, then?

Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell.

To expand on my answer since it looks like I have more time than I thought...

I didn't put up a real theological defense because I don't believe I need to defend myself "against" my brothers and sisters in Christ on doctrine since we both believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc. My answer was honest. I'm a gay (bisexual) woman that's not made to feel disordered in the Episcopal Church, and that someday, my daughter could be a priest. I don't know what you're looking for, but I know for a fact that offline, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Just because most online discussions are highly theological, doesn't mean that everyone has highly theological reasons for joining one Church or another.

Of course I was being facetious.  The way you phrased your response practically begged for it.  My apologies for that.

Now I'll stop being facetious.  I appreciate the candor of your latest response.  It is understandable that you would adhere to a religious institution that has come to affirm your lifestyle.  Your confession of belief in the Trinity and the Virgin Birth is commendable.  Many Episcopalians (including bishops) have come to doubt such core Christian doctrines.  But these doctrines are contained in the very same Scriptures and Church teaching that also declare homosexual actions to be sinful.  How do you reconcile that?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to pick up social cues in real life, let alone online.

I'm just not entirely convinced that a) we have the right translation when it comes to the word "homosexuals" in the Bible and b) whether or not this was more about the abuse of young boys by pedophiles and/or other cultural practices. Not saying homosexuals are pedophiles, of course. I've been meaning to ask my priest about these things though.

And about my lifestyle: I sleep, go to school, go to work, go home, repeat. I wasn't aware I had a lifestyle LOL.

And about the errant bishops, I really don't have to worry about them as long as I know my parish confesses the Nicene Creed. I was Orthodox around the time the Antiochians had that big controversy in Troy, MI. It didn't really effect me on the ground, even being Antiochian.

At the risk of being "that guy" Romans 1:26 makes it pretty clear that the type of behavior St Paul found objectionable wasn't limited to NAMBLA. About the only defense any Christian who wants to defend sexual licentiousness and homosexuality has is to claim that the Jewish (and later Christian) restrictions against food and sex had to do with germs and not actual morality, and that our supposedly more sanitary practices and latex means we can do whatever we want.

And here I find that argument silly, considering sex isn't "dirty". Messy doesn't always mean "dirty".

And the cultural and Biblical context of Romans 1:26-27 is important to keep in mind. There is more than one interpretation of this. In context, I'd say that St. Paul is talking about temple prostitution not faithful homosexual relationships.
Keep the medical/historical context in mind- the act of sex isn't "dirty" but the cultures surrounding the Hebrews were rife with venereal diseases, just as most of the "unclean" foods were likely to spread parasites. It is only since the 20th Century, with it's antibiotics and latex, that we can argue that "what happens between two consenting adults in a mutually loving relationship is harmless." The list of people killed by syphilis alone is staggering.

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #110 on: March 05, 2013, 04:07:14 AM »

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.

  Now, there may be other arguments against homosexuality in the Bible...  but I don't find Romans 1 to be persuasive. We could also argue that Genesis Chapter 1 is talking about the beginning of the world having mornings and evenings and days, too, but that doesn't conform to our modern experiences of the world, ie, science, and most people in this age rightly reject that kind of fundamentalism.  In the same way, I don't think St. Paul's description of behaviors fits how most informed people now days encounter actual gays- people don't suddenly give up their orientation for women and turn to men against their "natural desires".  So we have a problem, throw out our scientific understanding and just accept "What the Bible says" without thought and scandalize the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith, or we read the passage in a different context.  In the wider context, Romans 1 isn't a systematic statement of Christian sexual morality, it's part of a condemnation of gentile idolatry.

 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 04:11:57 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #111 on: March 05, 2013, 05:13:02 AM »

We can argue over whether or not St Paul is talking about temple prostitution in a passage where he fails to say that is what he's talking about (unlike the passages where he makes it quite clear that he is speaking specifically of temple prostitution)- though given the fact that St Paul was a "pharisee of the pharisees", and keeping that "context" in mind- specifically the levitical texts that a Pharisee was steeped in, and the common Jewish understanding based on those texts as to what constitutes "sexual immorality", the burden of proof lies heavily on those arguing against the homosexual interpretation. Further, the commentary of Church Fathers much closer to St Paul in both cultural mindset and the use of the Greek of the era reveals that the interpretation clearly means homosexuality- not pederasty, not prostitution, but homosexuality.

  Now, there may be other arguments against homosexuality in the Bible...  but I don't find Romans 1 to be persuasive. We could also argue that Genesis Chapter 1 is talking about the beginning of the world having mornings and evenings and days, too, but that doesn't conform to our modern experiences of the world, ie, science, and most people in this age rightly reject that kind of fundamentalism.  In the same way, I don't think St. Paul's description of behaviors fits how most informed people now days encounter actual gays- people don't suddenly give up their orientation for women and turn to men against their "natural desires".  So we have a problem, throw out our scientific understanding and just accept "What the Bible says" without thought and scandalize the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith, or we read the passage in a different context.  In the wider context, Romans 1 isn't a systematic statement of Christian sexual morality, it's part of a condemnation of gentile idolatry.

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind. To say that Romans 1 states nothing of Christian sexual morality because it locates the source of immorality in idolatry is like stating that human beings don't see anything wrong with sniffling, sneezing, headaching, and high fevers because we know that the source of all this is the flu virus.

Genesis is an interesting example- even though we now think that the world came about as it is due to evolution, the only Christian outlook available is that God used evolutionary process as the instrument of Creation. Anything that denies "I believe in One God, the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth" is no longer Christian. Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live. We are called to a new nature, one found through Christ's Resurrection, one that seems and has always seemed scandalous to the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith- our message is foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor 1:18) and the Gentiles (the prevailing knowledge of the day, 1 Cor 1:23).

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 05:13:28 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2013, 01:44:53 PM »

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind.  

  Wow, I should tell my Roman Catholic friend that his lifelong, unwavering sexual orientation is because of idolatry.  Who would have thought?

Quote
Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live....

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
 

  I believe this view runs the risk of denying God as Creator, in fact.   Less Christian and more gnostic, if we assume that this created order is hidden.  There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.   No, I don't expect the Church to baptize everything about gay culture, but to equate being gay with a disease is to deny the goodness of the created order and to erode the dignity of gays as human beings. Many heterosexuals are in no place to be talking about the mole they see on the gay man or woman's body when they don't know the cancer in their own soul.   The true Christ-like spirit is to protect the stranger and the alien, as God commands, and this includes people that are different from us in our ideologies, lifestyles, and sexual orientations.  Only then, in the context of an authentic relationship based on love and vulnerability (which is a two way street), to discuss the spec in the brother's eye.   A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 01:58:53 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2013, 02:12:11 PM »

A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,369



« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2013, 02:39:17 PM »

There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.  

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2013, 03:08:59 PM »

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?

This. Pedophilia seems to be increasingly recognized as a sexual orientation instead of just a psychological disorder.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2013, 08:10:31 PM »

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. The passage uses homosexuality itself as one of the laundry list of the results of Gentile idolatry- and as the first indication of something seriously wrong, before launching into the sins of the depraved mind.  

  Wow, I should tell my Roman Catholic friend that his lifelong, unwavering sexual orientation is because of idolatry.  Who would have thought?

This is a danger of reading our reading our own cultural context into the document. St Paul is not speaking of the specific orientation of any single individual, but rather a cultural licentiousness born from idolatry. Your friend's attraction might indeed be inborn, but our own cultural worship of Ashtoreth and Moloch has brought about a permissiveness that makes him feel that he is right to act on this behavior (assuming the standard for those arguing in favor of homosexual behavior- for all I know, your Roman Catholic friend is dealing with this through prayer, fasting, and confession).

Even though we might believe these days that homosexuality is not "unnatural" in the sense that it is genetic, we are still required to believe that it is "unnatural" in the sense that all of the other sins St Paul lists in Romans 1, while very "natural" human behaviors, are not consistent with the lifestyle that Christians are called to live....

That said, we are not to judge, as St Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2. The Church is a hospital for sinners, and all are welcome. The problem is, many come to the Church to get their flu shot, only to be offended when the doctor suggests that mole they've had since they were born should be sent for a biopsy. Rather than stick around for diagnosis and cure, they run to a New Age healer that tells them that even if the mole is cancer, cancer is but natural life, and that this life should be encouraged and nourished.
 

  I believe this view runs the risk of denying God as Creator, in fact.   Less Christian and more gnostic, if we assume that this created order is hidden.  There has to be something redeeming about a homosexual orientation, or it simply would not exist.   No, I don't expect the Church to baptize everything about gay culture, but to equate being gay with a disease is to deny the goodness of the created order and to erode the dignity of gays as human beings. Many heterosexuals are in no place to be talking about the mole they see on the gay man or woman's body when they don't know the cancer in their own soul.   The true Christ-like spirit is to protect the stranger and the alien, as God commands, and this includes people that are different from us in our ideologies, lifestyles, and sexual orientations.  Only then, in the context of an authentic relationship based on love and vulnerability (which is a two way street), to discuss the spec in the brother's eye.   A Christian should not approach a gay person as a mere "sinner", but as a holy mystery of infinite dignity.

You are close to right here- a Christian should not approach anyone as a "mere sinner", but as someone made in the likeness and image of God. The only person we should be approaching as a "sinner" is ourselves- and not as a "mere" sinner, but as the very worst of sinners. However, the individual Christian is not the Church in and of himself. There is nothing "gnostic" in the view that humanity is fallen. Indeed, the fallen-ness of humanity reiterates the goodness of Creation- we are sinners not because of Creation, not because our matter is evil, but because our flesh has been tainted by death and our minds by the fear of death. The Church is the Ark of Salvation, it is the Body of Christ witnessing to the World, and Christ is the Great Physician come to bring new life to all. Homosexuality is a disease of the human condition, as is all other lust, along with envy, pride, wrath, greed, sloth, and gluttony. All humans we know of (with the possible exception of two other than our Lord) have a certain innate tendency toward one or the other. Should we encourage the psychopath in his lifestyle simply because he was born with the tendency to wear human suits or fire hundreds of thousands of people from his Fortune 500 to get a paltry raise, or should we offer to help him?

To be entirely frank, I don't like discussing the sinfulness of homosexuality (because I think in the case of most homosexuals it doesn't do much good and more harm- better to let each individual come to his or her own conclusion, in conjunction with their confessor and the Church)- save with Episcopalians who trumpet "tolerance" and really mean "permissiveness".  Were this discussion with a Southern Baptist, I might sound an awful lot like an Episcopalian. But there is nothing to praise in celebrating homosexuality, any more than the Corinthians were praised for celebrating their own sexually immoral brother (a quite heterosexual crime, that one- and I am sure he was simply following his biological imperative, not to mention fulfilling his Freudian impulses, though one certainly hopes the woman in question was his step-mother).
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2013, 01:35:45 AM »

We already have enough threads discussing whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. If you wish to bring up that debate again, please do so on one of the threads already devoted to the subject. Let's not derail this thread into yet another one. Thank you.
Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2013, 03:40:58 PM »

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"

   I think you didn't read that correctly.   Regardless of what you think of the morality of "homosexuality", a homosexual is a person of "infinite dignity".  To think otherwise is sub-Christian.  People are more than what they do in their bedroom.

  By the way, officially the Episcopal Church still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.   That bit tends to get lost in alot of the heat around this issue.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 03:42:14 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,166


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2013, 04:06:36 PM »

Why? A pedophile would probably tell you that he or she was born that way, as well. Would you also say that there is something redeeming about a pedophilic orientation simply because it exists?

This. Pedophilia seems to be increasingly recognized as a sexual orientation instead of just a psychological disorder.

Where do you get this stuff?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

spcasuncoast.org
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,507


WWW
« Reply #120 on: March 06, 2013, 05:01:13 PM »

Homosexuality is a "holy mystery of infinite dignity"?  What cites homosexuality as a "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"

I think you didn't read that correctly.   Regardless of what you think of the morality of "homosexuality", a homosexual is a person of "infinite dignity".

Says you.  How was I supposed to read that statement, "holy mystery of infinite dignity?"  What happened to homosexuality as a "holy mystery" part?

To think otherwise is sub-Christian.  People are more than what they do in their bedroom.

Is that the draw of Anglicanism - the welcoming and acceptance of individual dogmas?

By the way, officially the Episcopal Church still defines marriage as between one man and one woman.   That bit tends to get lost in alot of the heat around this issue.

Not in states where same sex marriage is legal.
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,630



« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2013, 06:02:24 PM »

Where do you get this stuff?

Just the general impression, which is why I said "seems." This and this came up in a Google search, and I don't know how legitimate they are.

But frankly, any attempt to differentiate between the various sexual orientations (objects, children, teenagers, same-sex, opposite-sex, animals, etc.) seems rather arbitrary to me without an independent moral standard.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 06:02:52 PM by Nephi » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,717


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: March 07, 2013, 01:23:36 AM »

I'm too tired right now to look for one of the existing homosexuality threads, so I'll let you guys look for one yourselves. As for this thread, I already told you all to take your discussion of homosexuality to one of the many threads already started to foster that topic. Yet you guys don't want to stop discussing the tangent here. Therefore, I'm putting a stop to it by locking this thread. I may reopen this thread tomorrow, possibly after splitting it. Until then, this thread is locked, so now you have no choice but to take your tangent somewhere else.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.48 seconds with 151 queries.