Episcopal church without gay marriage

You guys are either purposefully or accidentally missing my point. People can and do disagree about what marriage means. I’ve never said what my own view is or that your view is necessarily wrong, because I don’t engage in culture war fights, on principle. What I am objecting to is words like “heresy” and “heterodoxy” just being thrown around willy-nilly without any reference to any (pre-Reformation) Papal or conciliar decision on the matter. I was catechized in the EO Church; those aren’t words one just throws around. And I object to the persistent (dare I say, ‘stubborn’) conflation of matters of doctrine with matters of discipline. In opposing what you think is an unbiblical practice - about which you may very well be correct - you have made a dogma of your own out of being anti- what you oppose, and then perpetuating schism as a result. That’s what I’m objecting to. You object to what the Episcopal Church does, fine. Why aren’t you trying to change it if you care so much about it and think it’s so horrible? The Fathers didn’t leave and start their own church when the Arians took over, and that was a far more serious issue than what you guys are objecting to.

 

So if we cite for you a definition of marriage from Anglican documents, as being "one man and one woman", is that what you're asking for? I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

 

The dogmatic definition of marriage in the Anglican faith is found in the 1662 Prayer Book, and reiterated in the 2019 BCP under "Pastoral Rites/Holy Matrimony" (page 198 in my copy).

The dogmatic argument comes in the first sentence:

"Marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman, binding both to self-giving love and exclusive fidelity."

Further to that:

"The covenantal union of man and woman in marriage signifies the communion between Christ, the heavenly bridegroom, and the Church, his holy bride (Ephesians 5:32)".

So there's the theological argument for you, grounded in Scripture.

I didn't feel it necessary to quote this as I figured that Anglicans would already know it, but I guess not.

 

I am merely objecting to a matter of discipline being labeled as a “heresy” without any corresponding dogmatic definition. I am unaware of any specifically Anglican dogmas. The only dogmas in Anglicanism, as I understand it, are those inherited from the undivided Church. Is that not correct?

 

I am well aware of what the Prayer Book says. That is not a dogmatic definition. You have to show that the author(s) of the Prayer Book intended to promulgate dogmatic definitions in their liturgies, and the way you do that is by citing the associated anathemas: There aren’t any. Does “Anglican” catechesis not cover this? I feel like I shouldn’t have to be explaining this. You can’t just go labeling whatever interpretation you disagree with “heresy”. That’s not how it works.

 

You may be importing Roman theological vocabulary here. What do you mean by “dogma” here?

 

Anglican dogma is laid out in the normative 1662 BCP and in the 39 Articles of Religion. I suspect you're using the word "dogma" in a way that the Roman church would use it, which is incorrect since we do not have a Magisterium that makes dogmatic pronouncements. Our authority comes from a conciliar process that establishes the consensus, and the consensus is then put into our formulary (the BCP).

If you still don't understand, then I think you're the one who is confused about what "dogma" is and isn't. (Do you consider our affirmations of, e.g., the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed to be "dogmatic"? If not, why not?)

 

So everything in the 1662 Prayer Book is a dogma? Can you cite ‘magisterial’ Anglican theologians who have taught thus?

 

I'd like to hear what you think "dogma" is before I answer. What is Invictus' definition of the word "dogma"? Your answer will drive my reply.

 

I am referring to that which has been identified and defined as the Truth, with its opposite proclaimed as inherently sinful and rebellious against God, by a competent authority representing, and speaking in the name of, and with the consent of, the whole Church. The Church of England and its daughter Churches do not legislate for the whole Church, by definition. Ergo, such legislation would be in the form of (pre-Reformation) conciliar (or papal) decrees. The Nicene Creed, for example, came with anathemas. We no longer recite them, but they were part of the original. What it proclaimed - the equality by nature of the Son with the Father, and the eternity of both Persons - is dogma, meaning whoever denies it is de facto outside the Church.

 

Papal decrees do not have any weight, like at all. So that’s one big issue. It’s not central to your point, but may shed light to a source of the confusions.

No one can speak foe the whole Church in the year 2021, and that includes the Popes.

But more to the point, it’s a red herring to demand that our definition of marriage be something which the whole Church has defined, somewhere. The Anglican Provinces being particular members of the Catholic Church, they have authority to legislate for Anglicans. The Anglican authority does not need to reach the Lutherans or the Romans. We as Anglicans are legislated by Anglican authorities, in the conciliar model of consensus and doctrinal definitions, as outlined by Ananias.

 

You understand dogma as a Roman Catholic understands it, not as an Anglican understands it. You are reaching for some "universal" rule of marriage that governs the entire Christian body on earth -- a futile effort on your part, because apart from a few "innovators" in the US and Europe, pretty much all Christians for the last two millennia have agreed that Christian marriage is between one man and one woman. Including the Roman Catholic church.

Dogma is, quite simply, a truth that is received as authoritative. In the religious sense, it is a truth that guides both worship and conduct of believers. How this truth is arrived at varies by denomination. In the Anglican church, we arrive at this consensus* via church councils and meetings of the college of bishops. When that consensus is reached, the dogma is then written into canon law and integrated into the BCP as the normative form of worship. Dogma does not imply universal agreement in the Anglican church; it simply means a consensus-driven normative theology and practice for the church.

If a bishop or priest decides that the old dogmas are no longer acceptable, the only valid way to change them is via the conciliar process. The CofE and TEC's failure to do this has led us into the mess we have today.

*Or at least we used to arrive at a consensus in this way, before every bishop decided that he knew better than everyone else.

EDIT: Changed the language of the last paragraph .

 

The Roman church differentiates dogma from doctrine, where the latter is forever while the doctrine can change. We do not believe that doctrine can change, or even evolve. The development of doctrine is one of the worst ideas the Roman church has introduced (poor Newman), and we utterly reject it.

In this way, our word “doctrine” functions much like your word “dogma” in that it is eternal and forever.

However the difference is, we do not believe our doctrine is binding on another Particular Church. Until we all start holding General Councils again, the doctrinal consensus will be limited within the bounds of Particular Churches. The Romans concluded something over there; we concluded something over here; through a process of dialogue and consensus we may agree with them, or may not, and there is (currently) no way to enforce submission for the entire Church Universal.

That being said, the question is moot, because you and I and we are all Anglicans here. Even if you are in a different legislative context of TEC, we all agree to the weight of the Anglican tradition on questions of doctrine.

 

I am thinking of something like the definition of Pope Damasus, which followed the First Council of Constantinople, or the Tome of Leo, which was received by the Council of Chalcedon. My argument assumes papal supremacy (in the Middle Ages) only in the appellate sense, not in the sense of ‘original’ jurisdiction.

On the contrary, laws, i.e., commands with associated punishments for disobedience, even ecclesiastical ones, must be publicly and clearly stated in advance. That is a basic canonical principle. One cannot simply claim that something is “heretical” or “heterodox” that hasn’t been defined as such, no matter how clear or voluminous the circumstantial evidence in your favor may be. Your position may turn out to be the “right” one, but that does not entitle anyone to label the opposing view as outright “heresy”. The Church of England never claimed that kind of authority for itself and neither have its daughter Churches. I agree with @Ananias: the way some of those decisions were reached was wrong (even if the result turned out to be theologically unobjectionable). That does not mean those actions were tantamount to heresy, i.e., a belief the assent to which damns the soul.

 

If you go to the early Church, you can easily find local synods and particular churches declaring doctrine, and heresy, on points which hadn’t yet reached that status in the universal Church. For example I cite the Council of Elvira as one of the proof texts of Patristic rejection, indeed condemnation, of images in worship:
https://forums.anglican.net/threads/the-synod-of-elvira-in-4th-century-prohibited-images.3570/

Indeed there were MANY more local synods and, councils and definitions on doctrine and heresy, far more than the handful of General Councils. They are indicative of patristic thought, but from a legislative standpoint those decisions would only be binding within their Particular Churches.

So yes Anglicans, insofar as they are of a Particular Church, have the apostolic authority to locally decree what is doctrine and what is heresy. It’s not infallible, but it is authoritative.

 

You said it better than I did, but this was also the point I was trying to get at: we are speaking as Anglicans, within our own form of church practice and government. We can go no higher for authority than our council of bishops at the moment*, because the last great ecumenical council (the 7th) was in 787 AD and no further great councils have happened after the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. No single entity speaks for the Christian church universal (the church catholic).

*Apart from the supreme authority of Scripture, of which no word of man may overturn.

 

I am familiar with these councils and I agree with this. No objection.

 

As regarding WO, I agree that neither pro nor con positions are heretical. As I said before, I don't agree that the issue is adiaphora, but neither is it necessarily a salvific issue.

But the biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior are so clearly stated, and so consistent across both Old and New Testaments, that it most assuredly is a salvific issue to flout them. It amounts to a complete denial of scriptural authority within the church. To embrace homosexual behavior in the Christian church is heretical -- there's no other word for it. As Stalwart said, it's a matter of essential Christian doctrine here, not Anglican dogma.

 

This is fine. The point I am trying to make is that use of the word “heresy” implies a judgment about the state and destiny of a person’s soul. The Church has always been reluctant in the extreme to define heresy for that very reason.

The Church of England, and her daughter Churches, may enforce discipline, modify the Church’s ministry under her/their jurisdiction, etc., but one thing she/they cannot do, is legislate beyond her/their jurisdiction. The Episcopal Church is the recognized Anglican jurisdiction in the United States, by the rest of the Anglican Communion. As such, I feel I am duty-bound to obey it in religious matters, whether I personally agree with all its decisions or not. I’m a hardcore traditionalist, and I resent the implication that I’m somehow a “heretic” for taking such a stance. Nobody said obedience would always be easy. I do it because I love and trust Christ and that He led me down this path for a reason.

 

Scripture is the rule, not the judge (cf. Bishop Burnet’s Exposition of the 39 Art.). A local jurisdiction can choose to relax its discipline for pastoral reasons. (Eastern Orthodoxy did, in the case of divorce, for example.) This is what the Episcopal Church has done. Do you know any LGBTQ persons? By even framing that question in that way, is that not assigning status by virtue of group membership, rather than individual character? These are real human beings we’re talking about here, capable of tremendous love and sacrifice, and equally capable of being hurt and wounded. I dislike any ideology that refrains from treating persons as individuals created by God with a purpose. I understand what you guys are saying, but I also know that my LGBTQ brothers and sisters are some of the finest human beings I will ever know. To ignore either of those statements would be dishonorable in the extreme, and it is a sin to deny one’s conscience. Do with that what you will.