OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 10:53:22 PM *
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 4084 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



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: 753



« 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
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,998


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: 7,044



« 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
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,532


« 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

Large Marge sent me...
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: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« 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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 753



« 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: 5,123


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: 5,123


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: 753



« 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: 2,446



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: 5,123


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: 753



« 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: 2,446



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
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"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: 5,123


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: 5,123


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: 753



« 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: 5,123


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: 753



« 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: 753



« 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
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"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: 3,443



« 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: 753



« 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: 2,446



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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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
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 0.274 seconds with 72 queries.