“Why I can’t be Episcopalian”

"It is interesting to note that when there are actual councils of the Church, they do not operate by majority voting. What happens is something more akin to the Quaker concept of the "covered meeting". While there are, no doubt, politics involved, the issues have not historically been resolved by brutal up and down votes with first-past-the-post majoritarian logic. Something more gentle takes place."

I have attended two local councils in this metropolitinate, both of which dealt with extremely serious issues of ecclesiology. In both instances, one presided over by the Metropolitan and the other by the then Archbishop, a group of several hundred clergy and laity, with very diverse opinions, at the end of hours of discussions of the canons, discussions of the problem at hand and a great deal of prayer, suddenly it was clear that the Holy Spirit had descended on the assembly and the appropriate answer became clear to us. In one instance, relating to the removal of a hierarch, the recommendation to the Patriarchate was not merely a consensus, it was unanimous and in the other case, out of over 400 people (hierarchs, clergy and laity), only one layman dissented. When these sessions started, many of us anticipated a political typoe blood bath. Nothing even remotely like that happened.

The key, as the hierarchs reminded us, was to be open to the Holy Spirit. To that end, we all attened the Divine Liturgy before the session and had periods of prayer and reflection throughout. The results, by the way, surprised all of us, hierarchs included. There was nothing even remotely majoritarian or even "political" about what happened there. I know; if there had been, I'd have been involved in it. The roles played by the hierarchs and the clergy and the laity were all different but in the end, everyone had participated and the decisions were the decision of the council, not a "majority" nor of the hierarchs or the clergy or the laity, but everyone together fulfilling their appropriate roles. Frankly, I was astonished. And very pleased.

I must say, however, that this was the result of 2000 years of Orthodox praxis. Someone opined that this is in our "DNA". I guess I doubt it would work in the West where there is no real tradition of this in the Western Church.

"I must say, however, that this was the result of 2000 years of Orthodox praxis. Someone opined that this is in our "DNA". I guess I doubt it would work in the West where there is no real tradition of this in the Western Church."

O I promise you it DOES work this way in the West too, and not just at covered Quaker meetings either. There are too few councils of the Church, but the reports from them are that this is precisely what happens.

Koloko, what I suspect is coming to light here is that there is no particular democratic secular process in the East, so there would be no urge to have one emerge in ecclesial affairs. In the West, where we now have a democratic tradition, the emergence of parties can be seen.

One other point: LaTourette notes that the East has been doctrinally static for many centuries now. One way to look at that is to say, it now being entirely correct there is no cause for controversy. The other way to look at it is to say, ain't nobody thinking but simply taking what is handed them.

This has not been the case in the West. And, yes, among the results have been myriad heresies, some minor (Lutheranism), some extreme (Unitarianism, revived Montanism, imported Pelagianism, Mormonism). That can be the effect of the Devil, giving all the impression they can think more clearly than is in fact the case. It can also be the effect of the Spirit on wayward minds, from whose various mistakes, misreadings, misinterpretations and other misunderstandings, He winnows out new and more insightful expressions of the Truth once for all delivered to the Saints.

To give an ancient example, I think no one would argue that the expressions John of Damascus gives are not a distinct improvement on those advanced by Ignatius of Antioch. No one would thus call Ignatius heterodox nor consider John a dangerous innovator. And this ferment has been going on in the West since at least the 12th century. It looks messy (and it most definitely IS messy). A lot of false teaching is promulgated and the faith of many is severely tested. Who can say whether this is providential. What we have faith in is that the operation of the Holy Spirit will be to refine the Church of Christ and be the proper instrument for Him to deliver a spotless Bride to the Father.

We are always reminded that that Bride will be a remnant. Not every one who says 'Lord, Lord' will be saved.

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

I only point out that the RCC has had episodes of papal incompetence and even misguidedness, which she has survived. This can only be the rectifying work of the Holy Spirit

The big difference is, you're talking about the morality and behavior of some Popes. The Popes have never attempted to overturn the Faith, as many Episcopalian leaders have done.

So the work of trying to preserve and transmit the Anglican tradition of the Catholic faith goes on, a very fulfilling work

Are you an Anglican Use Roman Catholic?

Thank you for commenting. I gave the first issue you respond to some thought and went back and reviewed the record. Papal fidelity to orthodoxy has been little short of remarkable on any level. There was only one incident, involving Pope Honorius and that over 1,500 years ago, so your clarification has value.

I am not an Anglican Use Roman Catholic, but am an Anglo-Catholic, that is, I use the 1928 BCP, which stems from the BCP of the Church of Scotland, a direct descendant of the Sarum Rite. I have examined the Anglican Use rite, which I do not find to be sufficiently Catholic, if you will, compared to the rite I actually use.

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.