Dear Daniel,

Although I, too, believe that the Episcopal Church has sadly apostasized greatly, I do think that your righteous indignation towards it is being directed towards the personhood of Father Mike.

As for Father Mike having been Ruthenian, perhaps he converted to the Episcopal Church more than twenty years ago...it was a lovely church then, and one in which many Orthodox felt at home when there was no Orthodox church in the vicinity.

There was also a time in this country in which many of Eastern faith traditions wished to become more assimilated because of ethnic prejudice, and they most often became Episcopalian. My aunt, my mother's sister, converted to her husband's Episcopal faith in the 1950's for this reason...
Belonging to the Episcopal church meant a better career position and better social standing in a very narrowminded United States of the 1950's.

I think that Father Mike rightly deserves to be addressed by the title given him in his church, whether or not we agree with his church's stand on certain issues or with his personal feelings about those issues.

Heck, we have a certain, 'Reverend Al Sharpton' running around New York stirring up controversy and demagoguery for years, (and now trying to actually run for President of the U.S.), and although he is probably the farthest thing from 'Reverend' most can think of, the press still refers to him by that title.

So, all I am saying my dear brother in Christ, is that your opinions may be justified, but that you must not allow your emotions cloud the respect you must afford another who is created in the same image of Christ that you are...without affording that respect, your very valid arguments lose their credence.

Forgive me, if in any way I have offended you with this post.

With love and respect in Christ,
Alice

Alice,

Extremely well put and very nicely put, too.

(Nominates Alice for the next Moderator vacancy .)

Many years,

Neil

I second, en toto!

AmdG

Dear Alice and Icognitus,
Thank you for the gentle tone of your posts; that he had become Episcopal back when that body was [more] orthodox in faith had not occured to me. I once dated a Serbian Episcopal girl, come to think of it.
However, I can hardly bring myself to call that body a church nor members of her clergy who are not resisting the direction it is moving "Father". "Father" is a term that seems more than a formal title, it denotes a spiritual paternity that ought not be used lightly.
This whole conversation raises a lot of questions. I am really not an unecumenical hardass; I am generally very generous toward those of other faiths. I have no patience with Feenyites or those who would make the way of salvation exclusive. I do believe in dialogue. However, at what point do we state that a body has apostosized and is no longer Christian?
My question about Episcopalian support for sex with children was a serious one. Of course it seems unthinkable now. Fifty years ago it would have appeared unthinkable if I had suggested they would be consecrating an active homosexual as a bishop, wouldn't it? There are marginal [and some not so marginal] voices in society already calling for lowering the age of consent. Are we still then to refer to that body as a church and its clergy as "Father"? St John the Evangelist, the apostle of love, shunned apostates, didn't he? And didn't gentle St Nicholas punch Arius?
I'm not suggesting punching anyone, mind you, but I think these are pertinent and timely questions.
As a compromise, I am willing to refer to Episcopal clergy as "Reverend", as that term can be understood as denoting the reverence which any person deserves. Will that do?

Well,
Tough conversation Daniel. I think you are basically right. The tactic of using charity and niceness to cover a bum's rush on the truth is a very disturbing one. I read and re-read Fr. Mike's posts and while he did well on tone, it seems to me that he was in way double talking and invoking holy charity to cover a gross abuse. Still, it's no good taunting. It might have worked to invoke the Administrator's help early on. I would like to know what Administrator would like to see us do when a posting member advocates eggregious opinons. I mean I know Baptists, and other Protestants (not rabid people at all) who would have been wholeheartedly for your position (you, a Catholic!) against their Episcopalian Protestant brother Fr. Mike (although to be fair, I've learned that Baptists just aren't sure whether Episcopalean counts. One time I had a Baptist acquaintance describe his own personal ecumenical search. He put it this way "Once I began to doubt some Baptist teachings but I asked a Methodist and a Presbyterian and then I knew I was rightafter all!")
At any rate I for one would like to hear what Adminstrator thinks. What do we do when somebody defends something as nutty as homosexual marriage or consecrating an openly homosexual bishop? Should they stay? be asked to leave? I mean isn't that just as offensive as Alex tee-ing off with the name calling? He got suspended for using the a-word but somebody who uses a nice tone can blaspheme Christ by defending consecrated sodomy. Administrator, please (and I am humbly serious and not trying to pick an argument) give us your thoughts.
K

Daniel,
While I sympathize with you I still think you were a bit uncharitable.

For myself I just avoid using the title Father when I speak with him.

Just as the Methodist church next to my Melkite parish, the female minister refuses to call our pastor Father. According to the ideas put forward here, she is wrong and uncharitable as Father is a title granted to our pastor by the Melkite Church.

But Daniel, I disagree with you on the issue being the "consecrating an active homosexual as a bishop".

The issue is the consecration of a man who is sexually active outside of marriage as a bishop. The issue is also the fact that at the last conference they passed a motion to allow bishops to create a new rite to bless sex outside of marriage.

This is how they have erred and left the traditional christian faith behind.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

David- I earlier said that the consecration of Reverend Robinson was only the latest and most outrageous example of ECUSA's apostasy: the toleration of abortion, the toleration of heretical bishops [Spong et al], the toleration of homosexuality, all preceeded this most recent act. Of course the consecration of ANYONE who is sexually active outside of marriage as a bishop [or priest or deacon] is wrong [and as you know the Apostolic Churches do not consecrate married men at all but this is a disciplinary, not a moral, standard].That he is not only sexually active but left his wife and children and is homosexual only adds to the sin.
And I doubt the Methodist woman Reverend's motive for refusing to call your pastor "Father" is motivated by anything like my reluctance; more likely this is seen as a patriarchal title which she deems offensive. Oh, those Protestant Reverends!

Dear David and Daniel,

The point is that no one is as perfect as we are.

There!

Doesn't that solve everything!

(Enough already?)

Alex

I think that this is called an outrageous example of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy

Fallacy? Are you a wagering man? I'll bet in fifty years it will happen [maybe sooner]. As I don't think I"ll still be around, I'll collect in heaven, assuming we both make it...heck I'll probably still be in purgatory or going through toll houses or whatever the process is!

Christ is baptized!

Time out for a word from the moderator...

Seeing how Fr Mike is no longer posting on this topic, may I suggest that we get back to the original subject. We seem to have drifted as of late.

Daniel,

IMHO as the "Town Hall" moderator, on this particular topic you seem to be drawing conclusions beyond the extent of the postings. If anyone is going to respond to a particular post, may I ask you to please address the post as given.

Now back to our regularly scheduled postings.

All,

I have recently come across this website which relates to this topic.

Anglican Manifesto website

ProCatholico

All,

Earlier on this post there was discussion about an Anglican religious order that became Roman Catholic. I have found a website which briefly describes the history of this event.

Atonement Friars website

God Bless,

ProCatholico

All,

UPDATE:
New Anglican network signs charter, elects Duncan moderator

by Jan Nunley
040121-1
Wednesday, January 21, 2004

[Episcopal News Service] A new group calling itself the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP) was officially launched and a charter adopted after two days of meetings at Christ Church in Plano, Texas January 19-20. The charter states that the intent of the network is that its associated dioceses and "convocations," or clusters of congregations in non-affiliated dioceses, "will constitute a true and legitimate expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion" for those opposed to two controversial resolutions adopted by the General Convention in Minneapolis this summer.

For full story please click here:

ECUSA News Service

God Bless,

ProCatholico