Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Episcopalian Sect
The Episcopal Church of the USA consolidated it's progressive stance this week by confirming the validity of homosexuals for ministry at all levels. The meltdown of Anglicanism continues, and there is little in the Christian world that saddens me more. There's not much new here, but read about it if you wish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Interesting take on the situation by the Bishop of Durham:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece
Of course, the Lutherans are poised to do the same thing at their national convention in August. According to an ELCA news release:
"Two documents on sexuality issues will be considered at the 2009 assembly. One is a proposed social statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust." Social statements are theological and teaching documents that form the basis for policy in the ELCA. The other, a "Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies," asks the assembly to consider a process to change ministry policies to make it possible for Lutherans who are in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gendered relationships" to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, deaconesses, diaconal ministers and ordained ministers."
That's not surprising in a "church" based in lust!
Ya' know Padre, if ever there were a visible representation of the church at Thyatira, it would have to be the Episcopal church as we've come to know it. I wonder just how much of this sheer wickedness stems back to 1976 and the ordination of the Philadelphia seven?
I'd like to hear your take as one who's sat on both sides of the aisle.
Andy
Jedesto,
Now, be charitable.
While I have no apologies for Henry VIII's later marriages (divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived, the saying goes), his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, at least, is far more complicated than just lust. She had been married to Henry's older brother, Arthur, who had died. Papal approval was sought for what was basically a levirite marriage, which took place seven years after Arthur had died. As you well know, there were no male heirs from that marriage, and so Henry sought an annulment. This was not without precedent. Louis VI and Eleanor of Aquitaine had two daughters -- no male issue. The marriage was declared annuled on the basis of "consanguinuity of the 4th degree," and she went off to marry Henry II of England, with whom she had some very famous sons.
Henry VIII, no doubt, expected a similar result, and he probably would have gotten one, but for one minor detail. Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, was Catherine's nephew, and he had just sacked Rome and made the Pope his political prisoner. Negotiations got no where, and the once great Defender of the Church (who had been in the running to become Holy Roman Emperor himself) declared himself head of the English church.
It's worth noting that Thomas Cranmer himself was approved by Papal Bull to become Archbishop of Canterbury -- the last one, perhaps ironically. Henry and Cranmer were excommunicated by Clement VII a few months later.
My point, primarily, is that the Church of England's creation was primarily a political issue, of which marriage was mostly an excuse.
If you must be snippy, at least appreciate the full nuances of what happened. :>
Shaughn, You are right as to basic history. It is absolutely relevant that Carlos V was Catherine of Aragon nephew.
But, is it appropriate to look at the rest of Henry's life to prove or refute the assertion?
Henry apparently had some illegitimate children/sons, had several/many churchmen murdered and seized church property. Sounds protestant to me. That is the root of the CofE/ Anglican Communion. AnneG in NC, former Anglican
PS A senior official of the ECUSA told me in 1986 that ordaining homosexuals and bishopesses was a matter of civil rights. That's when my husband returned to Rome and I swam the Tiber.
AnneG,
I haven't been in the Episcopal Church since Trinity Sunday, 2006. One of the best decisions I ever made! A big trouble with Episcopalians is the trouble with most churches in America, Protestant or otherwise: most folks seem to think that if their parish is sane, and of course it is, and the wider body leaves them alone, life is good. I can tell you why TEC hasn't bled faster than it has (although it lost something like 50,000 members in 2007) -- Most folks flat out don't know. They see their bishop once a year for confirmations, and that's really about it.
So far as illegitimate heirs go, that is more a feature of people in authority than Protestantism. I can give you a big, long list of cardinals, Holy Roman Emperors, and French kings with illegitimate offspring if you like. For murder and arrest of clergy and seizing of church property, you need look no further than the Donatist controversy in North Africa or whatever conflict in Ireland (or, for that matter, the sacking of Constantinople during the Crusades). Violence isn't a special feature of Protestantism or any other group of people.
My point wasn't to legitimize the whole of Henry's actions, but merely to illustrate that Anglicanism is far, far more complex than is often described. I'm not one to cast off an entire movement on the basis of its principle characters' failures of character. We honor as apostles and saints a bunch of people who flat out abandoned or denied their Lord after He was arrested, after all. I simply ask for a little charity, agape, or even basic civility.
Re - post scriptum -- the trouble is, once you ordain women to the diaconate in the same sense that men are (as opposed to a lay female diaconate, which is different), the whole system breaks down. It only follows that they can be bishops, because Paul's language for deacons and bishops is largely parallel. And the same logic will get you gay marriage and ordination of non-celibate homosexual clergy. It blows up the whole sacramental system because suddenly the Matter of a sacrament doesn't, er, matter. There's much else I might say, but simply put: Thank God I've been lead to a body that, whatever its flaws may be, doesn't try to mess with the sacraments!
Peace.
--S.
Shaughn,
Thank you for saying I was "snippy" when you could have said "ugly." Perhaps I should mention that 70+ years ago I heard a former Episcopalian gentleman include the "lust" metaphor in explaining his motivations to convert to Catholicism. Given the complex politicalization of the English Reformation, Henry VIII's lasciviousness extended to a craving for power, property and, literally, gold. The metaphor has considerable validity.
For anyone interested in the latest development: there is another resolution pending to create and collect liturgies for same-sex blessings, marriages, etc. It was supposed to be taken up by the House of Bishops yesterday but that has been postponed. It is rumored that the bishops have been spooked by the international reation to the passage of the first resolution.
I have found Fr. Longenecker's analysis of the problems of Anglicanism quite enlightening. These latest developments are perhaps the endpoint of a centuries-long process.
Why bother going to church then? I don't need a church to teach me how to live according to my base desires, I can figure that out at home--that's the problem.
Does anyone actually read the comments here or do we all just kinda vent and carry on with something else?
fried chicken strips: I read these remarks. I don't often post here because I'm just learning but this is one of the sites that I visit at least once a day.
Laura R.,
I'd agree that this is the end point of a centuries long process, but I would put the starting point back to the founding of the American Church. More or less, the Church of England did not offer proper pastoral guidance to the colonies -- that is, they (and/or Parliament) refused to send a bishop for the ordination of local priests, and they required that priests be ordained in England. This caused obvious problems during the Revolutionary War, as English clergy had sworn loyalty to the Crown. Two solutions arose: First, the American church made a deal with the Church of Scotland to consecrate Samuel Seabury as the first bishop of what would become the Episcopal Church. As a result, the American edition of the BCP doesn't come from the 1662 BCP (still in use in England), but more closely resembles the Scottish Non-Juring prayerbooks. Second, John Wesley, an Anglican Priest, appointed two superintendents, Asbury and Coke, who eventually decided they were Bishops, and began what would become the Methodist Church.
The results are clear. Anglican roots among Methodists are, by and large, barely recognizable. In Georgia, where I am, they look pretty close to formal looking Southern Baptists.
In TEC, you have a very strong tendency to snub the Church of England, especially where it wishes to impose any authority on any other part of the Anglican Communion. In my mind, that's part of the real trouble with Anglicanism as it is practiced within the Anglican Communion (of which I'm no longer a member). Different national churches can, more or less, do whatever they please, and there's no office with any regulatory teeth. It also nicely illustrates the devestating consequences of failing to provide the correct amount of pastoral care -- be it catechesis, sacraments, and so forth, among the laity and clergy.
I suppose one could trace it back further to Henry VIII's troubles. Who was his priest, or, really, the priest of kings in general? How did they receive any sort of pastoral care?
Fr Longenecker,
As an ex-Anglican myself, I don't think this should sadden you. I realised many years ago that the Anglican Church started to go rotten when it separated from Rome 500 years ago. This is simply the culmination of a long slow death.
I simply pray that as many Anglicans as possible will return home. The sooner the Anglican Church dies the sooner many of its members may be forced to realise where God's true Church really is and return to Rome.
I suspect however, that many of the Catholic minded Anglicans have already returned home and that those who are left value their own personal religion far too much to ever submit to Christ's Vicar.
Shaughn's focus on "if their parish is sane, and of course it is" gets to the heart of it, I think.
A protestant acquaintance of mine once asked me "are you still going to the Catholic Church" and I replied:
"I don't go to the Catholic Church. I go to Mass at my parish; I'm IN the Catholic Church."
Once again, I thank the Episcopal church for providing me with ample reason to convert to Catholicism.
May God be praised.
I'm not really looking for an answer, just sort of thinking out loud, but my daughter attends preschool at an Episcopalian church and so far I've had no cause for concern. The school has a strong Christian ed program (chapel every Monday), and I genuinely appreciate the number of songs and very general prayers she has learned. (She also attends Sunday school at our parish.) She has been taught nothing at preschool that contradicts the Catholic Church's teachings. (Of course, that wouldn't be the case if she were to continue at an Episcopalian school, but she'll be switching to a Catholic school come kindergarten).
But if TEC continues down this road, I'll be forced to take a stand, and it's so ironic, because my dilemma is emblematic of Protestantism at large – do I take the action I feel is proper based on the passage of this resolution, or do I wait and see what direction this particular church goes in? They're a rather conservative congregation, so I don't think we'll be seeing gay clergy anytime soon nor do I expect a waiting list for when those gay marriages can take place, but am I causing scandal by paying tuition to an Episcopalian school?
Hmmm. This might be more serious than I first thought. Might need to contact Fr. L directly.
Eliz,
The school that your daughter attends may well be just fine, if the parish is a conservative one and especially if it is in an orthodox Episcopal diocese. There are still faithful bishops and laity in the Episcopal Church, but you need to be careful to look for them. The resolutions passed at this General Convention should not affect such parishes any time soon, and you probably do not need to worry about paying tuition there.
TEC as a whole, however, will continue down this road. The resolution already passed and the other one about to be passed are only part of a clear path the Episcopal Church as a whole is inexorably following, or so it seems at present. It is a heartbreaking prospect for those of us who have been Episcopalians for many years, and is forcing us to consider our own ecclesiastical futures.
Fried Chicken Strips:
I read all comments, which I consider at least as interesting as the post--sometimes more. One doesn't read blog posts for news, but for opinion; one reads comments for the same reason.
Shaughn:
The minute I see the word "complex" in somebody's comments, especially when the comment attempts to refute (courteously or otherwise) someone else's by implying a lack of understanding, I am suspicious. Yes, we all know the political situation in Europe and England during the Deformation was intense, but there was nothing new in that. Politics has always been about power--it still is. Henry VIII was not the legitimate monarch because Henry VII was not. Richard (III) Plantagenet was the legitimate monarch. Contrary to much "pop" history, he was not hunchback, by the way, nor did he have his newphews murdered in the Tower. Actually, Richard III had the most progressive and enlightened reign in English history. Tyrell confessed to the crime as having been committed on behalf of Richard III twenty years after his death and under torture. The English lay down for this monstrous historical lie because they were so wearied by the War of the Roses--the same justification, not coincidentally, that Henry VIII used for his sacramentally illegal divorce: to avoid a return to war between the competing claims to the crown. (His ensuing horrific violence against his own people certainly reveals that motive as a lie.) Likewise, Elizabeth I never had much of a problem with Catholics in England until events in Europe poised themselves to threaten her own illegitimate claim to the crown. English anti-Catholicism has its origin in the illegitimacy of its monarchs--in their attempt to inculcate nationalism to protect their claim to the crown. Politics is all about power--then and now. And the more illegitmate the power, the more viciously that power is protected--Elizabeth I, Henry VII, and Henry VIII. Unlike the other two major brands of Protestantism under Luther and Calvin, Anglicanism, or the "Church of England" is an entirely political creation, not a theological one.
I have profound sympathy for Anglicans during this time, but none whatever for Anglicanism. (Yes, I can distinguish between the two--like most Catholics. Calling a thing what it is in observance of historical facts does not make one un-understanding.)
Estiel,
I was never implying lack of understanding, but rather, that pithy comments which attempt to over-simplify complex political or theological situations are not helpful.
If I may demonstrate, with a comment about which I really am not terribly passionate, but illustrates the point:
Peter had a mother-in-law. Peter was married. Why in heaven's name is it a discipline of the church that priests are not allowed to do what Peter himself did, and presumably continued to do, before he was crucified upside down?
Now, see? Nothing at all productive will come of that, because the traditions surrounding it are far more complicated than even the claim that "it's just a discipline of the church."
Likewise, saying what amounts to, "Haha, the Tudors were sinners. And icky." isn't especially helpful or insightful. Most of us are, after all, to some degree or another. We know not where Henry VIII or anyone else is, as it is not for us to say. Hence the call, above all, to charity.
Shaughn,
I don't see among any of the comments where anyone called the Tudors "icky." If there were such a comment, I'd be able to agree with you that it would not be helpful in understanding this point in English history. But there doesn't seem to be much point in saying anything about a comment that wasn't made. (Like the "oversimplification" that you saw and that Jedesto so lucidly explained.)
Likewise, I don't see anything here that really deserves being called "uncharitable." Actually, I don't think charity is a concern of historians. At least I hope not.
Pax.
???
I once asked an Episcopalian colleague of mine, who I am confident would agree whole-heartedly with this decision, what he would be wiling to die for as the early martyrs -- or for that matter, the Ugandan martyrs -- died for. He said that he would die for his brothers' and sisters' right to marry whomever they loved. I highly doubt this to be the case. I am sad for Anglicans. What a mess.
Post a Comment