Show me how the Episcopal Church teaches Heresy (officially)

This is something I've wanted to know for a long time but have never received an answer to…

Where exactly (page and source) is heresy found in the official documents of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America?

Sources may include: 1979 service book, Canons, Constitution.

This is your chance ACNA folks, convince me.

 

I'm interested in this too. I've heard a lot of claims about the official position of PECUSA that simply aren't substantiated by official documents of PECUSA in my admittedly cursory investigation of the matter. That isn't to say that those documents don't have problems, just that they don't have fundamental problems that destroy the nature of PECUSA as a Church or justify separation.

 

what is your definition of heresy?

i think this is a good start:http://www.generalconvention.org/gc/resolutions?by=number&id=A049

 

Resolutions are not part of the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Church. They only express the mind of that particular gathering. (To show this, the 1874 [or thereabout] Convention voted against using incense in church -- this is not practiced in PECUSA because it was not made into an official stance in the Prayer Book or C&C)

 

I'd like to believe that the heresy is just institutional rather than doctrinal, but are we confident that none of the canons contain heresy? Now that I think about it, if you are asking for an example then women priests would surely be one such heretical doctrine. Or what about that of practicing homosexuals in the clergy. I struggle with this every day. Are you saying that none of these beliefs are enshrined anywhere in the canons or the constitutions?

 

It seems that the way heterodoxy has been allowed to thrive in The Episcopal Church is through ignoring the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Church and creating myriads of exceptions to those rules. This is more of a practical matter than a doctrinal matter. This is happening in virtually all denominations, not just TEC or even just the Mainline churches. For instance, I've heard studies that report that the average Southern Baptist is baptized more than once in their life, when officially Southern Baptists would eschew the idea doctrinally. It's just that as a practical matter, nobody checks on it or even really cares, and you'll hardly find a Southern Baptist preacher that would be willing to preach against it (probably because, ironically, Baptists don't actually think Baptism is really important).

Practicing homosexual clergy just isn't explicitly forbidden, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any denomination that explicitly forbids it. It was simply assumed to be part of regular discipline until recently. As far as female ordination goes, it is usually enshrined in the form of gender neutrality canons at the diocesan level that could simply be repealed, that is if it is enshrined at all. It's not as if it is integral to the Constitution, Canons, or Book of Common Prayer. That is unless I'm missing something. That was a main issue I was attempting to determine for myself recently since I read somewhere that Canon Law forbade changing women's ordination, but I've not found that to be the case. Of course, that raises the issue of simply amending that Canon and then amending the other, kind of like proposed Constitutional Amendments that forbid their own amendment are really dumb ideas.

 

I'm not of the opinion that the ordination of women is a Gospel issue. Moreover, those who are of such opinion couldn't be a part of ACNA in any good conscience. That ship sailed in 1976.

 

I think you're spot on in the first paragraph. But this means we are dealing with a lot of bad Episcopalians, not that the Episcopal Church itself is bad. Luckily, the liberal crew is not to keen on following the rules (even though they have the numbers to simply change the rules).

 

Well I have an orthodox parish so I'm all set for now. Were that to go away i don't know what I would do. Nor can I say with assurance whether the recent resolutions have made it into the structure of the church or not.

 

I don't like the idea of "Gospel-issues" vs. "non-Gospel issues." That's not because I think that doctrines that directly impact the Gospel are less important, it's just because I think that this is an issue of Scriptural authority. The Scriptures clearly and explicitly say that women should not teach. Finding ways to rationalize ourselves out of plain Scriptural mandates does not bode well for other issues of Biblical authority that our culture might not approve.

That is not to say that I think ordaining women should be an issue that automatically breaks fellowship. Ironically, the fact that Paul had to tell Timothy not to ordain women is evidence of that. There are plenty of Biblical reasons outside I Tim. 2:11-15 to believe women should not be ordained, so exhorting against it without saying to excommunicate over the issue does lend credence to the idea that it is not an issue worthy of breaking fellowship, unless compelled to accept it. That is not to say it isn't important or that we shouldn't work to oppose it in the long-term.

 

Another issue I think is important to raise is the fact that the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church contemplate their own amendment. This is important because it means that when you swear an oath to uphold the discipline of the Church that does not mean you have to agree with every element of the Constitutional structure. It is really up to the disciplinary authorities to determine what are acceptable amendments to publicly advocate.

In the secular realm, it is relatively common for Congresspeople to take oaths to defend the U.S. Constitution while believing it should be amended, even at a fundamental level. This is perfectly acceptable because taking an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution includes defending the right to amend it.

 

lol, not according to my bishop. He said actions taken by the GC were the rule of the church and should be followed. If your conscience required you to reject those actions then it was probably best if you leave, since GC was the governing body of TEC. Next time I see him, I'll tell him he's wrong because Hackney Hub said so. Even though same sex blessings wrre approved by GC

 

and a liturgy approved to be added to the list of services and blrssings are being performed validly by parishes across the country it doesnt count because it's not written in the Constitutions & Canons.

 

Ask him where in the C&C that GC resolutions are given the same authority as the C&C. It's not because I said so, these are the rules of the Church, by her own standards, not something I came up with.

 

Yes, exactly. These services are not part of the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Church because they have not been approved canonically. Some even doubt the authorization of Enriching Our Worship (the liberal catholic blogger, Haeligweorc, for example).

 

why does it have to be on the same authority as the C&C?

 

Why is it not? it seems to me that it is a change in dicipline which certainly implies a change in both doctrine and worship.

 

i dont see how a bloggets doubts can be held as an wquivalent alternative authoritative opinion to a sitting bishop of the TEC.

 

Because it only expresses the opinion of that Convention. Does you church outlaw the use of incense? If not, then you are breaking a previous resolution of GC. I only use this example to show that resolutions are not the law of the Church.