www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Episcopal Church General Convention: Damaging the Church?

Dear Anton:

I agree that the Eastern churches will not be discussing issues such as homosexual unions, homosexual clergy and the ordination of women any time soon. Hence, the Episcopalians' action in confirming an openly gay bishop will have no effect on the Eastern Churches.

Are we "sticks in the mud?" Maybe.

But are we not also ones to be guided by mystery and tradition and leave undefined what is not absolutely necessary for the Faith?

The "Roman Code" approach taken by the Latin Church is, as far as I understand it, foreign to our Rites. In other words, we do not have to have a Papal prononcement on every miniscule aspect of our lives.

Yours,

kl

Dear Axios:

... especially when those "mistresses" of those Popes and Cardinals were reputed as not always being female.

Yours,

kl

Once again you strike.

I see no use in this reply except to incite anger or to point at the faults of others.


David

Another update.

The House of Bishops decided to rewrite the proposal for the Rite of Blessing Sex outside of Marriage.

What they rewrote it to be is to allow the Bishop to decide if he wants a new liturgy in his diocese and if so, then to write it.

This was later passed by the House of Delegates.

So in essence, if a bishop wants a new rite, he just makes it. As one of the delegates that was against this proposal said, "any church that wants to can write any liturgy they wish."

I have not seen anything about the abolishing of the transitional diaconte.


As to why I posted this and wish to discuss this.

Christianity is harmed when ever there is a person who claims to be a christian but teaches something that is either foreign to or opposite to christian teachings.

This is compounded when it is an "offical" body of christians that calles themself the church.

There are people within our church, not just laity, but also theologians and clergy, who are calling for just these changes within catholicism.

They want the office of the pope to be reduced to resemble the archbishop of cantebury. They want us to not only recognize same sex unions but to bless sex outside of marriage, they want to accept abortion and contraception. They call for priestesses. They want the laity to elect there own bishops.

This is just a few things that are going on.

We are in a fight and it just got harder for our side.


David

Gee, that would make you more like the....ORTHODOX CHURCH!!! (Gasp!).

Axios

As I was reading this post, it came to mind and is totally unrealted, but maybe someone else will remember. The Anglican Archbishop of Cantabery, many years ago in church, denied the Virign Birth.
Within a very short period of time the church was struck by lightning and considerable damage was done.

Now that they, the congregation or whoever has voted to bless gay marriages, I think it will be a matter of sitting back and watching the fire works.

Then this Episcopal Bishob on Fox News this morning among other things, saying this bisop-elect is a very moral man. Moral - humm - I thought the action of homosexuality is immoral, isn't he living with his so called live in whatever. Have they got their wires confused are they switched on the circuit breaker somewhere? Then he proceded to say they didn't vote to bless them at that time, 6am, because they had to bring the people along slowly, and he had said this way they would be able to introduce and teach all of these new ideas. Well by 8am (this is central time)they had voted to bless marriages.

LORD JESUS CHRIST, SON ON GOD, HAVE MERCY ON US SINNERS!

We as Christians are responcible for this no matter where we are in God's church because we have not prayed enough, we have not covered our leaders in prayer, and we have not evangelized as Christ has called us to do.

I see why the mess that has been so much in the news, the sinfulness of a few priest has been such a blessing to the Church. We have been given a wake up call! Look at what you have allowed in My Church is what I imagine the Lord saying! A call to arms to be steadfast in the great commission and to not tire until the Lord says one day "come, My good and faithful servent."

We have had friends through the years that were homosexual and came out of the homosexual life style. These people have a very strong faith and totally detest the life style they lived. They understand why they were there, and have no desire to go back. It is not hereditary. It is kind of like the article the other night that said men cheat on their wives because it is in their genes. Give me a break!

Rose

Project Canterbury

Lambeth on Contraceptives

By Charles Gore, D.D., D.C.L., LL. D.
Bishop of Oxford

London: Mowbray, 1930, 30 pp
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/gore/contra1930.html

...To-day we are living in a world which has widely revolted from the obedience of Christ. Our literature is saturated with this spirit. He Himself bade us be prepared for such an experience, even in its extremest form. 'When the Son of man cometh,' He asked, 'shall He find the faith on the earth?' Our business, then, is to uphold the full standard of the good life, through evil report and good report. The worldly world must go its own way and may seem to prevail. We must not attempt to pronounce any final judgement on individuals. We can 'judge nothing before the time.' If the Church has been slack in the past, it must expect God's sharp judgements on itself; but it is still its business to open the eyes of all its members to the true implications, social and individual, of the 'life which is life indeed,' and under persecution or unpopularity to consolidate the faithful remnant, who are to nourish their souls in the readiness to suffer with Christ and in the secret security of final victory in Him. We have no right to sanction the 'second best.'

Dear Axios,

Please do not slight the Orthodox Church by implying that we resemble the Anglican Church.

The comparison of the Archbishop of Canterbury to any president of the synod/council of any autocephalous Orthodox Church leads one to the immediate conclusion that the two are highly dissimilar. The Anglican system of selecting their archbishop involves consultation with the laity, minor clergy, deacons, and priests. Ours, canonically, does not.

(To wit: The OCA has made a great error in soliciting such input since in the past two elections the synod has ignored the overwhelming recommendations/nominations of the All-American Councils and elected their own choice.)

In the Orthodox Church, laity do not elect their bishops. Laity along with the minor and major clergy of the diocese within a vacant see may nominate a man for election by the respective Holy Synod. The synod elects, if they choose to. They may ask for more nominations from the diocesan assembly or reject all nominations submitted and appoint their own man.

A synod may vote overwhelmingly to elect a candidate as bishop, but the president/metropolitan/archbishop of that synod may always exercise his veto, which the synod may not override.

We are not a democracy!

On top of all of these structural differences, the Orthodox Church is still a Christian Church. The Anglicans may no longer wear that name in good conscience.

With Love in Christ,
Andrew

In 1976 the Episcopal Church's national convention passed Resolution A-69 which stated 'It is the sense of this General Convention that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance and pastoral concern and care of the Church'.

Does any of this sound familiar ? It's almost exactly what we're beginning to hear more and more of in certain dioceses of the Catholic Church (LA, Milwaukee etc) Episcopalians were being told that they must love AND ACCEPT the homosexual person, yet nowhere is it stated that the active homosexual's lifestyle is gravely sinful and offensive to God.

27 years after this resolution the Episcopal Church has an openly homosexual Bishop. Could the Catholic Church be destroyed in similar fashion ? Of course it couldn't ! Could many individual Catholic parishes be destroyed by the false teachings of some of our priests and bishops in this area of grave concern ? Of course they could !

Just sticking my head in for a minute...

One slight difference in the selection the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The final selection (from the nominations) is made by the Prime Minister of England.

This system is what freaked out John Newman eventually. He could see the implications of having a parliament of individuals with varying religious convictions selecting a Prime Minister of unpredictable character to make such important decisions regarding the church.

The suppression of the Irish bishoprics alarmed him and he realized that the church had no say in the matter, even if the decision was a good one it did not belong in the hands of civil authorities.

Now we have had generation after generation of church leadership promoting nationalistic anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox attitudes as part of their justification for existing.

Aside from his preaching and ceremonial duties the Archbishop of Canterbury has no real authority in his church. I believe that he can be removed by the civil authority at any time.

And the church property in England is in the posession of the state.

Has anyone here ever seen the movie "Never ending story?" It was one of my children's favorites when they were young.

It portrays an alternate world that is inexplicably crumbling into nothingness from the edges to the core, with everyone powerless to stop it. This image sticks in my mind as I observe the happenings in the Anglican communion.

Ok, I'm done

Michael

Thank you Michael!

And isn't the King/Queen of England technically head of the Church of England?

And I believe that the King /Queen may also dismiss the Prime Minister.

So not only is the chief bishop of the Anglicans a second to a non-ordained male or female lay person who is necessarily a Christian (the King or Queen), but he is selected, ultimately, for his post by a non-ordained male or female lay person who is not necessarily a Christian (the Prime Minister).

WOW!

Thankfully Still In Christ's Precious Church,
Andrew

Rose, this area of your post struck a chord with me. I hadn't thought of it before, but if we really were praying enough as well as doing good deeds, this might not have happened to the Episcopal Church.

Your second paragraph is interesting too. Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam is a great book. Mr. Adam talks about how when the Church undergoes crisis, it always helps the Church. It is necessary for the Church to undergo persecution from within and without, and it only makes her stronger. He equates the Church with Christ in this regard, saying that suffering is necessary for the Church. I'll have to read over that section again. It's a lot more interesting and in-depth than what I construed it to be a few lines above.

Logos Teen

Andrew

As a Brit - answering your questions in order
yes !

Technically - yes!

and
and again - yes - but remember the Monarch at present has to be a member of the Anglican Church .

And you think you have problems

Anhelyna

The reigning Monarchs of Great Britain are actually bi-ritual. Anglican when in England and Wales, and Presbyterian when in Scotland (the Queen is also the current head of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland)and at one time Lutheran in the German provinces.

Dear Andrew,

I do not slight the Orthodox Church by pointing out some features that some conservative Catholics hold dear in their own church are common neither to Anglicanism nor Orthodoxy.

I would disagree that the comparison of the Archbishop of Canterbury to any president of the synod/council of any autocephalous Orthodox Church leads one to the immediate conclusion that the two are highly dissimilar, to the point made in the original post.

Unlike Catholicism which hold that the Bishop of Rome has certain powers by divine ordinance, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism see rankings of bishops (Primates, archbishops, metropolitans, etc) as distinctions holy in tradition, but of human development for the good order of the Church.

I think you contradict yourself when you post:

The canons of the OCA do call for consultation with the laity, as your addendem notes. The practices of the Orthodox Church in parts of Europe also gives the laity a role in the selection of bishops. In the Armenian Apostolic Church (not an Orthodox body, but a church we hold in great esteem), the laity have an even greater say in the election of the Catholicos. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese also has a formal role for the laity in episcopal appointments.

That not what I have heard from the bishops' own lips. They were not ignored but given serious consideration. If that is not true, our bishops are liars.

All in all, more similiar to the Episcopal system than the Catholic system.

We certainly are not following the Roman model. It is much more like a family decision making process than the parlimentary model or the Roman model.

Orthodox Christians are not required to beleive any of the Protolic churches are true churches. But as members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, we certainly allow them that name.

BTW, on the later post, what John Henry Newman objected to in England, was not substantially different from the way most Orthodox bishops were selected at that time.


Axios