www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Episcopal Diocese Seeks to Unite With Rome

Daniel:

May the peace of the Lord be with you too!


Mike Dobrosky

And with your spirit!

Herb,

You said that the theology of the Anglican church is different than that of the Latin Church. Would you be kind enough to point out one or two areas in which the theology of the Anglican church (as traditionally understood) is different than that of the Latin Church?

Not only ordaining homosexual, Daniel, but electing, consecrating, and installing an active one as a bishop. Wow.

Logos Teen

Daniel,

I think the 30,000 of whom Father Mike speaks are those of ECUSA whom he considers likely to become members of whatever complementary, parallel, separate, or separatist Episcopalian structures ultimately develop from the crisis. What choice of affiliation is made by African Anglicans (or Anglicans of other continents/nations) may be of less consequence or interest to the average ECUSA church-goer than we like to surmise.

"millions" strikes me as an overly-optimistic number. If that many Episcopalians/Anglicans are unhappy with ECUSA's decisions (or response to those by Canterbury), that's more than enough to continue on their own way, in their own entity. As much as I would like to see such an influx of our Anglican brethren into communion with Rome, I'm unconvinced that we'll see that volume.

Why "dissidents"? Father Mike described them as Catholics who have been away from the Church for a matter of years. The "fallen-away" Catholic is not a new phenomenon; a lot of factors (e.g., lack of schooling in their Faith, indifference, personal problems) other than dissension are involved in such individual decision-making. And, "good riddance" strikes me as a particularly uncharitable attitude toward the loss of members from our Church. As much as I would like to see them return to Catholicism, I'd rather that they find an environment in which they are comfortable worshipping God than they they be left by the wayside, unchurched and possibly lost. (And, please, spare me the lectures on the eternal damnation of those who, knowing the true Church, reject it. I know and understand the doctrine, but ultimately it is God who will make such judgements, neither we as individuals nor the Church as an institution. I prefer not to second-guess Him.)

It doesn't seem to me that Father Mike spoke in any other than a respectful, factual manner; I saw no gloating in his comments about receiving converts from Catholicism. It strikes me that the response to him exuded some veiled hostility that was undeserved. Just my opinion.

All,

Might as well go for broke on the type of topic that I usually choose to avoid, since I find it not worth the time to debate.

I think we are quick to condemn our Episcopalian brethren for the decision to ordain a practicing homosexual as a bishop. While we may disagree with the decision, we need to acknowledge that there was no hypocrisy to it - it was an open and public action (and, yes, the more scandalous for being such).

The risk of being ourselves labeled hypocritical is great. I doubt that there are any among us who don't know one or more priests (if not a prelate) who are practicing homosexuals, albeit in camera. Is our sin greater or lesser that we tolerate such happenings, but pretend that they don't exist (while snickering, speculating, and whispering about them), yet rain fire and brimstone on those who acknowledge the choice they made to do so?

Many years,

Neil

Neil:

I must admit that I was surprised by Daniel's somewhat curt and angry reply to me. I followed that up with "May the peace of the Lord be with you" and he appropriately replied but I'm not sure he understands.

Daniel, et all. I never intended to start an argument or to offer disrespect towards the
Roman Catholic Church in my post and I see that Neil picked up on that. His take on what's going on in the Episcopal Church is IMHO correct.

Since I wasn't clear on it, yes, I was referring to the 30,000 Episcopalians in the U.S. What people fail to understand is that the African Church is part of worldwide Anglicanism but the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a "pope" and cannot force any province to do anything. His main authority lies in his ability to make an invitation to individual bishops to the once every 10 year Lambeth Conference at Canterbury.

My personal opinion is that what happened at General Convention in Minneapolis has caused a great deal of turmoil within Anglicanism but I believe we did the right thing. Perhaps now, we've brought the subject of homosexuality into public view and out of the closet. My own reading of scripture regarding the subject leaves me open to a lot of questions.

Are we wrong? I'm sure that our God will let us know in due time.

May the peace of the Lord be with all of you!


Fr. Mike (raised Ruthenian Catholic and very much one in spirit --- and grateful for it).

I would like to hear more of this opinion of yours?

How was the acceptance of a man who is sexually active outside of marriage the right thing?

If this man was living with a woman he never would have been accepted.

I would also respectfully ask how one can be a Ruthenian Catholic in spirit but be a priest in the Episcopal, which is not catholic and is western in spirit?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Father Mike,
The subject has been very much in public view long before your action. Please realize that what you did was not to bring it out of the closet, but to consecrate it.

Such a radical departure with the past, undertaken with what foundation? Has there been any serious intellectual or other activity within your communion aimed at developing some basis for this radical shift? Or aimed at considering its possible consequences?

Lesser. And apart from pretense, snickering, etc. I don't see the sin at all. Inclination to sin is the humnan condition. Succumbing to that inclination is as well. It is by no means whatsoever hypocritical to identify certain behavior as sinful, but nevertheless accept the fact that all fall short of the glory of God. And to view repentence and reconciliation as the treatment for sin.

Failing to avoid sinful beahvior is of course sinful. But Openly choosing sinful behavior, and promoting it as a good, isn't that the quintessence of evil.

I just thought I'd add this to the mix:

"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

---Gamaliel
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) has been discussing the subject of homosexuality for over 20 years --- and we've done that openly --- and the people (laypersons, bishops, priests and deacons have all been participants).

(I'm really not trying to make anyone angry. I'm just stating the facts).


Fr. Mike

Thanks for your insights Fr. Mike, I enjoy hearing what you have to say. God bless you and your ministry. Don (formerly Fr. Don of the Old Roman Catholic Church English Rite)

Dear Father Mike,

The argument of Gamaliel in this context is an interesting one.

This is an important point that gets lost in recent events, which are reported more as an political act of voting of one's conscience, however, informed, rather than a decades long process filled with soul-searching. Can you give some references to writings that reflect thoughfully on this searching?

When I said "millions" I was speaking of the worldwide Anglican communion, many of whom still hold to those elements of the Apostolic Faith that have been preserved in their tradition.
As for numbers in the US likely to end up in communion with Rome, who knows? Many are likely to end up in small Anglican groups, some may end up Orthodox. I do not know how anyone who takes the witness of the historical Church seriously can remain in communion with the fraudulent organization that calls itself a church. It isn't just the gay bishop, who left his wife and children, it is that denomination's support of abortion, their ordination of women [contrary to the Apostolic tradition], and their tolerance of "bishops" who deny just about every element of the Creed.
I don't trust Gamaliel's standard; by that standard the Mormons are of God and the Church in the Arab lands was not, but I doubt even by that standard the ECUSA is going to flourish; every Protestant denomination that has embraced relativism has declined in numbers. There are more Muslims in the US than Episcopalians.
And no, Neil, I don't know personally of gay clergy who are tolerated in the Catholic Church, though I'm told that it happens. If so, shame. But to take an official stance that this is morally neutral is another thing altogether. Was it Chesterton who said that hypocrisy is vice's salute to virtue?
And I am not at all unecumenical; however sometimes one is obliged to call apostasy by its right name. Let's not bother with those denominations who are busy hacking at whatever remnants of the true Faith remain among them. There are too many Christians of good will [and various theological traditions] to waste our time on them. And for those still in communion with the apostate ECUSA I say [with our Lord]: "Come out from them, my people".

Triumphalism lives! and that is truly shame

No, triumphalism would not admit the existence of other "Christians of good will" of various theological stripes, now would it? Or does apostasy not exist in your worldview?