For Episcopalians is being "inclusive" a real doctrine for them?

In increasing order- 1) preached against. 2) refused the sacrament. 3) and in the better days of the church, disciplined with penance.

 

Quite possibly. But let's see how h/churchman replies to my posting of 12:57 today, shall we? Your thoughts would also be valued, including on my reply to spherelink.

 

I wonder what the unhinged Episcopalian Church is like. The priest gets up in the pulpit, points to Jenny and Maureen in pew three and denounces them as Lesbians. Then he turns to Anne and Peter: "they're living in sin, you know". And after that Lisa: "a divorced woman in our midst". The next week they're refused the sacrament. That just wouldn't happen in the Church of England.

How do you discipline them with penance?:think:

 

I've said over and over again that the prerequisite for any kind of discipline would first have to be preaching against the sin. Without a clear statement of what is wrong and what is right, any accusation of what is wrong becomes entirely untoward.

All I'm really talking about isn't even discipline per se, but just the preaching, against the impersonal sin. Can you tell me why that's so hard to do?

 

Preaching against sin? Well, I could suggest to our Vicar that her sermons could be based on this. For the next seven weeks she could address the Seven Deadly Sins one by one. And then move on to sectarianism, bigotry, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, adultery, fornication, divorce, etc.

There are a lot worse sins than being gay. The Lesbian grannies I mention are a quiet, inoffensive couple who do a lot of work for their church. If you want to attack sin, remember that we have all sorts of problems in the world: racism, pornography, child abuse, poverty, hunger, this sneering "new atheism" and secularism, for example. The Lesbian grannies are scarcely a problem, are they?

 

You've got yourself a deal.

 

how do you rank one sin as worse than another brother seagull? how do you calculate a sin's quality? and how do you know that God judges by that same standard?

 

I'm not really in that business. But it stands to reason that some sins are worse than other: murder and rape are more sinful than careless driving and pilfering for example. Secular law takes that into account.

 

I don't want to derail the conversation, but I had another question and since several forum members are here I thought I would ask without starting another thread. The following is from an Episcopal parish website http://holytrinitychurch.org/what-we-believe/

What we do agree on

Episcopalians consider themselves one part of the catholic (with a small-c meaning “universal”) church, of which all baptized Christians are members, not separate from or superior to other denominations. And we do not insist that ours is the only or even the best way.

So what is the minimum amount of agreement we need? Here’s what’s been offered:

1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the revealed Word of God.

2. The Nicene Creed is the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

3. There are two sacraments, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate (Bishops), locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called by God into the unity of His Church.

If we talk in terms of dogma (which are core beliefs that are non-negotiable) as opposed to doctrine (on which different positions may be held), there are really only two for Episcopalians: the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the two natures (both human and divine) in one person in Jesus Christ. All the rest, while important, are not core to Episcopal identity. The other doctrines, such as the Resurrection, are implied by these two.

Would Anglicans in the CofE agree that there are only two dogmas? Also this:

Common prayer rather than doctrine

It can be confusing for people outside the Episcopal Church to put their finger on what we are and what we believe. That’s because, unlike other denominations, we don’t have any documents which lay out exactly what the teachings of the church are on most matters.

Instead, our central document is the Book of Common Prayer, which defines our worship rather than our doctrines as what unifies us. Episcopalians worship together, in common. During the service, the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed will be recited, which are the only doctrinal statements we have. There are no requirements that a layperson believes a particular doctrine to become an Episcopalian. It has been said, “You can believe pretty much anything you want, so long as you enjoy going to services together with us.”

Does the Book of Common Prayer only define worship and not doctrine? I always think of the well-known saying, "lex orandi lex credendi," in other words, what we pray is what we believe. Would an Anglican of the Cof E agree that the BCP is not the basis of doctrine, as this website states?

 

I'd go along with this - thanks. A few points:

i) I've heard it said (in jest) that Anglicans "can believe pretty anything they want, as long as they don't believe in it too much". (!)

ii) One thing that is confusing to outsiders is that we are broad church. Some of the posters here would certainly feel ill at ease in the (liberal catholic) church I attend. But I believe that even in the CofE we still have a few homophobes and even creationists (though I have never met one). There is also a small but vocal minority against women bishops and a smaller one against women priests.

iii) I notice that you describe yourself as "orthodox" but refer to Episcopalians as "we".

iv) A fellow parishioner of mine does not take the sacrament. At first the Vicar thought she must be RC. But no, she describes herself as "an associate member": her beliefs are not great enough for her to wish to be confirmed.

 

Thank you for your response seagull. These are very helpful. As to the "we," I use that in the sense that we are all Christians here. I am a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church and was raised a Baptist. I was baptized and chrismated into the Orthodox Church on Holy Saturday 2010.

Peter

 

In my reply,....
Allow me to quote Bishop Jewel in his struggle against Hardinge"Only such assertions of Catholic Truth as could be justified by reference to the double standards of Scripture and the doctrine of the primitive Church as expressed by authoritative councils and the consent of the F!athers.

In today's speak, Christ's Revelation, Scripture and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church!
All this as S. Paul has it, "Without Addition or Diminution" !

 

Does the ACC accept the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral?

 

I shouldn't think so, but I don't know, didn't ask them! The ACC accepts the Seven Councils of the Undivided Church. I did ask them that!

 

How odd. Someone joining the so-called "Anglican" Catholic Church didn't even bother to ask about the Quadrilateral, the basis of modern Anglicanism.:think:

 

no need to speak disparagingly of a fellow Anglican province Seagull. i should think that past Anglicans would feel a good deal more familiar with the modern Anglican catholic church than even with the modern C of E

 

I do not regard the "ACC" as "a fellow Anglican province", neither I suspect does Lambeth Palace. I doubt if they are represented at the Lambeth Conference. But I did not speak disparagingly of it.

And anyhow, presumably a "past Anglican" (your phrase) is no longer an Anglican.

In this country we do have some people who move to Rome (and vice-versa), but very few splinter groups. Hence the failure of the Personal Ordinariate of St Mary of Walsingham.

 

I find somewhat ironic though not completely unexpected that a thread about anglican inclusivism turned into one anglican telling another he isn't really anglican at all

 

what is unexpected is that it only took to page 2 to devolve to that point.

what is also a little unexpected, is that the CofEer is dismissing the "catholic" because he doesn't maintain a formal communion with a particular bishopric. who's the real romanist here?

 

Yeah seagull, why are you intent on excluding people?