Show me how the Episcopal Church teaches Heresy (officially)

Can you provide a link to the C&C that might go a long way in clearing up the confusion I'm having.

 

It's not my doubt or opinion. Read White & Dykman.

 

I agree with H.H.. They same could be said about the C. of. E., It does do and accept various things that are out of step with orthodoxy whilst claiming to be orthodox. Some years ago, the Romanists brought out their C.C.C. to great fanfare. The Calvinist , Mr Carey, in a blaze of excitement wrote a fulsome missive, saying how much the C.of E agreed with the C.C.C. Content. Rome replied that the problem was the C.o e, didn't teach it!

 

First of all, I agree with your posts on this thread. The Episcopal Church has not abadoned the faith once delivered. That said, I have been a reader of Haeligweorc for years and I do agree that he definitely leans catholic, however, I never came away thinking he was a theological liberal. In some of his posts, he has been very critical of the Jesus Seminar types and other such heresies. Is he just liberal regarding sexual issues or is there something I missed?

 

For what it is worth, the ordination of women is forbidden by the language of several of the Articles of Religion:

Article XXIII limits the ministry to men by its language:
"It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same."

Article XXXII does the same:
"Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness."

And even Article XX prohibts the Church from abusing its authority in creating new rites or ceremonies, such as the ordination of women, that is contrary to the Scriptures, regardless if it is a "Gospel issue":
"yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written"

Granted, certain ACNA jurisdictions still retain this error. But I cannot fault a layperson who faces the option between hearing a false gospel at the local TEC parish or the Gospel in an ACNA or continuing Anglican parish from choosing the latter. But I thank God for those orthodox parishes and the very few orthodox bishops in TEC who provide safe harbor.

 

I was a Personnel/HR professional for all my working life, and when I started work, most procedures, etc used the word "man" and "he". They were used loosely and considered to be blanket terms, not least because the workforce traditionally had more men than women. That has now changed.

Similarly, the XXXIX articles, of themselves now rather archaic, were written in a different era, before "he/she" or "s/he" were used. That, of course is the case in most of the BCP and indeed in many hymns. Should the hymn "Good Christian men rejoice" give rise to the rejoinder, "are you telling me I sholdn't rejoice because I'm a woman"?

I'm not sure if anyone here is trying to claim that the ordination of women priests in Anglican churches is a heresy. Because if you are, you are implying that both the CofE Archbishops and most of the CofE Bishops are heretic as indeed are the two Archbishops. And this puts you in breach of House Rules, doesn't it?

 

You have a point, but I would not call this heresy, error yes, but not heresy. If the ordination of women is elevated to heresy, then there is no feasible way for anyone to be Anglican in North America. PECUSA and ACNA both ordain women and the Continuing jurisdictions are not recognizably Anglican in any sense.

 

Dear Hackney,

In what sense are the Continuing bodies not recognizably Anglican? Because they have no desire to be in communion with Canterbury? I am just curious.

 

I don't agree with you regarding the Continuing jurisdictions as "not recognizably Anglican", but I do agree that error exists in each Anglican jurisdiction. Sadly, one must "pick their poison:"

1) ACNA, a jumbled form of Anglicanism, pentacostalism, presbyterians with prayer books, non-prayer book Sydney evangelicals, etc.

2) TEC, with a few orthodox parishes and dioceses that live in tension with a majority-heretical church.

3) Continuing Anglicans, who love adding to the BCP too much.

Lord have mercy! What is a layperson to do?

I am a mere layman so I can't define heresy, I'll let the Church do that. But women's ordination is particularly troublesome regardless if you are "Protestant" or "Anglo-Catholic" in understanding apostolic succession. If you receive the eucharist from an ordained woman, what are you receiving? God can work in all manner of things, but he certainly made it clear in Holy Scripture that elders and bishops are to be the husbands of one wife. Is it heresy? I'm not the Church to judge, but it is certainly a grave error.

 

They aren't?? Heavens pray why not? I've been to an APA parish and an AOC. In both I heard sermons that appealed to the formularies and the historic divines, both worshiped according to the 1928 liturgy, read from the KJV. I can't say in all my years as an episcopalian I ever ever experienced anything so Anglican. Arbitrary thy name is Hackney.

 

Then kick me out if it breaches House Rules to point out the "literal and grammatical sense" of the Articles, affixed by the King's Declaration. The Church of England and American Anglicans may have changed, but the Articles have not, and more importantly, neither have the Word of the Lord in explaining who may be ordained in His Church.

Feel free to use word games if you must, but if Holy Scripture and the Articles do not convince you, please refer to the 1662 BCP, Preface to the Ordinal:

"And none shall be admitted a Deacon, except he be Twenty-three years of age, unless he have a Faculty. And every man which is to be admitted a Priest shall be full twenty-four years of age, unless being over twenty-three years of age he have a Faculty. And every man which is to be ordained or consecrated Bishop shall be full thirty years of age."

 

In regards to WO, it is not the minister that makes the sacrament valid but Christ Himself. Receiving from a woman does not negate the sacrament.

I would not summarize the Continuing Church's problems as you have, they do not follow the BCP's theology nor do they adhere to the theology of the Articles. Many (not all) are teaching a false gospel of works salvation.

 

You must have had a special experience with them. It does depend on region but all of the services I have been to were not recognizably Anglican, much more traditionalist Roman than anything else.

 

It depends on the jurisdiction, the majority of them subscribe to the St. Louis Affirmation which openly and blatantly contradicts the AoR (purposefully so). This is on a theological level, they tend to adopt a majority of the Roman errors that our Church rejected at the Reformation and consequently teach a false doctrine of salvation, equally a bad thing as what TEC is doing.

 

Thank you Hackney, I understand now where you are coming from. Some of the Continuing jurisdictions have gone to the extreme in Anglo-Catholicism, but certainly not all of them by any means. The Continuing bodies reflect the divisions that have existed in Anglicanism for some time, namely Low Church, Broad Church, and High Church, but I agree; most seem to be on the High Church side, which is only a problem when Roman errors are adopted.

 

Oh I get your game. I thought this was supposed to be an honest conversation, not a trick question. The word "heresy" is mentioned only once in any of the cited sources. The Great Litany says "From all false doctrine, heresy, and schism; from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment, Good Lord, deliver us." Neither the current Constitution nor the Canons even mention the word "heresy" or any derivation therefrom, let alone define it in any authoritative manner. How can one even make an argument concerning heresy when the only sources allowed make no meaningful mention of the word. It's as if heresy does not exist in Hackney's closed universe, which seems pretty apropos. It is the universe of the Episcopal Church after all.

At most, priests, Deacons, and Bishops may be brought up on charges of "Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church." Which if the church is heterodox, could actually mean that preaching sound biblical and orthodox doctrine could land you with a presentment.

Now, the one loophole that anyone interested in playing Hackney's game could use is that Title IV, Canon 15 defines Doctrine as follows: "Doctrine As used in this Title, the term Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church. The Doctrine of the Church is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer." One could make the argument that anything contrary to the canon of Holy Scriptures is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church by incorporation. This of course would apply to women in the ordained ministry, as it would to the condoning of homosexuality, the support of "reproductive freedom" of women, and on and on. But then, Hackney would again say that, at most, this means that only Priests, Deacons, and Bishops are guilty which is not the same thing as the Church being guilty. And then we're back at square one.

Dirty pool Hackney. I thought better of you.

Source: http://episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf

 

...and of course it could also beargued from the above definition of doctrine not all teachibgs against the Canon of Holy Scripture would make one liable under the offensr but only those parts of scripture "as understood in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer." Which means one could deny almost everything in the bible execpt for those portions revealing the nature of the trinity, the birth passion resurrection and ascension of christ, the threefold ministry, and the nature of the sacraments and still be in the clear.

Fortunately our dear chief pastor, Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori, treads deep into these weeds on a regular basis

 

While I'd agree that Hackney is going off too narrow a definition of "heresy," I don't think he is being unfair or dishonest in any way. The fact of the matter is that the semi-official false doctrine taught by The Episcopal Church is not part of the Canon Law of the Church (at least from the evidence presented so far). We also have Biblical precedent, from Jesus Himself no less (the parable of the wheat and tares), that false teachers will be among us. Our 39 Articles even anticipates them having the "chief authority in the Ministration of Word and Sacrament." A better way to judge is whether or not The Episcopal Church imposes a sinful term of Communion. Must you participate in sin to be a member or clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church? I don't think so, and that's because the Constitution and Canons do not force you to hold or teach any false doctrine or participate in sinful practice.

The Episcopal Church, despite all of her myriads of flaws, does not impose sinful terms of Communion. Of course, that might depend partially on what you consider "sinful terms of Communion," but I don't think you can consider The Episcopal Church to impose sinful terms unless you adopt Puritanical Separatism (not even moderate Puritanism would work) to be honest. That's ironic considering many garden variety Anglican separatists are Anglo-Catholic of the strictest sort.

The only arguments that have some warrant, or at least a prima facie case to be made, are female ordination issues. However, is it sinful to merely be involved with ordained women? I don't think you can say that. I would say that the only people involved with that sin are the Bishops who ordain them, the General Convention which approved it and has subsequently done nothing, the women ordained themselves and anyone who provided them direct aid and comfort along the way. You might be stained with that sin by being part of a Church that ordains women, but to be stained with a sin is not to participate in it. All Churches, no matter how comparatively "pure," are flawed, and you are stained with those flaws as a member whether or not you participate or support them.

 

She isn't mine, any more, thank all that is good in the world. Under our holy bishop Mark we haven't had to suffer her tyranny for a few years now.

Edit: I still count myself as an episcopalian however. As of course we are.

 

But the question is whether a woman can be a minister, or is an ordained woman an impossibility, akin to a square circle? If so, then it is impossible to have a minister who is a woman and no minister means no sacrament.

This is different from Donatism, which was concerned about the spiritual health and sanctity of the performing [male] minister. Opponents of WO are not objecting to the woman's morality or theological opinions, but to the explicit denial of the "maleness" (requirement to be male) of the offices of bishop and elder. Just as you cannot baptise an animal, marry two men, or commune with water or grape juice, it is impossible to make a female into a minister.

I know it sounds "harsh" to our modern ears, believe me, I once felt as such. But the Scriptures and Anglican formularies [plus 2000 years of tradition from Rome, Orthodoxy, Coptics, Armenians, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.] says otherwise.