The Church of England has capitulated to the world on gay marriage

[The Liturgist]

Last week, in a truly devastatingly tragic event, the worst thing to happen in the Church of England in many years, they voted to begin trial blessing services for homosexual marriages, which are of course directly contrary to scripture. In retrospect, it is remarkable that the C of E held out as long as it did, and I suspect part of that may have been due to some influence or respect for HM Queen Elisabeth II, Memory Eternal, and with her having departed, no longer the nominal leader of the Church of England, a subject she might have been deeply opposed to might have proceeded. Or it could be the result of other changes.

At any rate, this is extremely depressing, as it brings the C of E into line with the same failed condition we see in the Episcopal Church USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland, and the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of New Zealand, with the exception of the very conservative Maori portion of that church where our friend @Carl Emerson worships.

This leaves, as far as I am aware, only the Anglican Church in Wales and some parts of the Anglican Church in Australia, and the aforementioned Maori church, and also as far as I am aware, the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, as hold outs among the developed English speaking world that are members of the Anglican Communion.

It also increases greatly the risk of a schism with more conservative churches in Africa, Asia and South America, such as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, the Church of Ghana, the Church of South India and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

On the bright side, there remain a large number of conservative, traditional Anglicans in the Church of England, and thus far these parishes have been allowed to operate even in the most liberal dioceses without much interference. In particular, in the Diocese of London, there is a great deal of tolerance for conservative churches, both of the low church Evangelical variety and the high church Anglo Catholic variety (the former being exemplified by Holy Trinity Brompton and the latter by St. Magnus the Martyr, All Saints Margaret Street and St. Bartholomew the Great. London is also home to “Royal Peculiars” under the direct control of the monarch, including Westminster Abbey, the Chapel of the Savoy, and the Temple, and these churches preserve a very traditional form of Anglican worship, with boys’ choirs (as well as a very excellent girls’ choir at the Temple), and use of services from the Book of Common Prayer (unfortunately the 1662 version, since the superior 1928 version was infamously blocked by Parliament, although large portions of it survive in Common Worship, which is the extremely flexible liturgical system introduced by the C of E in recent years.

This will also severely damage ecumenical relationships between all Anglican churches and various other churches including the persecuted churches of the Middle East and Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, and the Maronite, Chaldean, Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian churches.

Still, this is desperately sad news, news long expected but nonetheless difficult to receive with equanymity.

 

[HTacianas]

Last week, in a truly devastatingly tragic event, the worst thing to happen in the Church of England in many years, they voted to begin trial blessing services for homosexual marriages, which are of course directly contrary to scripture. In retrospect, it is remarkable that the C of E held out as long as it did, and I suspect part of that may have been due to some influence or respect for HM Queen Elisabeth II, Memory Eternal, and with her having departed, no longer the nominal leader of the Church of England, a subject she might have been deeply opposed to might have proceeded. Or it could be the result of other changes.

At any rate, this is extremely depressing, as it brings the C of E into line with the same failed condition we see in the Episcopal Church USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland, and the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of New Zealand, with the exception of the very conservative Maori portion of that church where our friend @Carl Emerson worships.

This leaves, as far as I am aware, only the Anglican Church in Wales and some parts of the Anglican Church in Australia, and the aforementioned Maori church, and also as far as I am aware, the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, as hold outs among the developed English speaking world that are members of the Anglican Communion.

It also increases greatly the risk of a schism with more conservative churches in Africa, Asia and South America, such as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, the Church of Ghana, the Church of South India and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

On the bright side, there remain a large number of conservative, traditional Anglicans in the Church of England, and thus far these parishes have been allowed to operate even in the most liberal dioceses without much interference. In particular, in the Diocese of London, there is a great deal of tolerance for conservative churches, both of the low church Evangelical variety and the high church Anglo Catholic variety (the former being exemplified by Holy Trinity Brompton and the latter by St. Magnus the Martyr, All Saints Margaret Street and St. Bartholomew the Great. London is also home to “Royal Peculiars” under the direct control of the monarch, including Westminster Abbey, the Chapel of the Savoy, and the Temple, and these churches preserve a very traditional form of Anglican worship, with boys’ choirs (as well as a very excellent girls’ choir at the Temple), and use of services from the Book of Common Prayer (unfortunately the 1662 version, since the superior 1928 version was infamously blocked by Parliament, although large portions of it survive in Common Worship, which is the extremely flexible liturgical system introduced by the C of E in recent years.

This will also severely damage ecumenical relationships between all Anglican churches and various other churches including the persecuted churches of the Middle East and Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, and the Maronite, Chaldean, Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian and Ethiopian churches.

Still, this is desperately sad news, news long expected but nonetheless difficult to receive with equanymity.

Jhn 15:5 - “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

Jhn 15:6 - “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

[BobRyan]

Last week, in a truly devastatingly tragic event, the worst thing to happen in the Church of England in many years, they voted to begin trial blessing services for homosexual marriages, which are of course directly contrary to scripture. In retrospect, it is remarkable that the C of E held out as long as it did, and I suspect part of that may have been due to some influence or respect for HM Queen Elisabeth II, Memory Eternal, and with her having departed, no longer the nominal leader of the Church of England, a subject she might have been deeply opposed to might have proceeded. Or it could be the result of other changes.

At any rate, this is extremely depressing, as it brings the C of E into line with the same failed condition we see in the Episcopal Church USA, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Ireland, and the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of New Zealand, with the exception of the very conservative Maori portion of that church where our friend @Carl Emerson worships.

This leaves, as far as I am aware, only the Anglican Church in Wales and some parts of the Anglican Church in Australia, and the aforementioned Maori church, and also as far as I am aware, the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, as hold outs among the developed English speaking world that are members of the Anglican Communion.

Very sad to hear this news. I don't know much about the C of E as you call it - but can you tell us if this was a huge shocking move that came from nowhere or were there a lot of signs available to church members to clearly see that this was coming?

 

[PloverWing]

Very sad to hear this news. I don't know much about the C of E as you call it - but can you tell us if this was a huge shocking move that came from nowhere or were there a lot of signs available to church members to clearly see that this was coming?

It's not a shocking move that came from nowhere. The Anglican Communion (of which the Church of England is a member) has been wrestling with this issue for the last 30 years or so. Different national churches within the Communion have made different decisions. I didn't know which decision England would eventually make, but conversations have been going on in the Church of England for some time.

 

[prodromos]

I feel somewhat responsible. The Anglican communion has been on a steady decline since I left to become Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Paidiske]

Just to be painfully pedantic, the C of E has not voted to conduct or bless same-sex marriages. It has voted for trial use of liturgies which can be used to bless persons who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage (not blessing the marriage, but blessing the people who happen to have been married). That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is an important theological and liturgical point (and the only reason the proposal got enough votes to pass).

It didn't come from nowhere. The C of E has been engaged in a process of intentional reflection and dialogue around the pastoral needs of LGBTIQ+ people, and the theology of sexuality, marriage, and so forth, for some time (I think six years or so?) You can find out more by looking up "Living in Love and Faith." It has not been taken lightly, and it has not been easy; it has been fraught, and painful, and the point they've got to pleases very few people (in that the conservatives are carrying on as if the world is ending, and the liberals are feeling it doesn't go anywhere near far enough).

Based on what I've seen in Australia, I suspect very very few people will have any interest in using such liturgies anyway. It's not as if there are vast numbers of faithful churchgoing Anglicans in civil same-sex marriages who have just been waiting for this moment to arrive.

 

[The Liturgist]

I feel somewhat responsible. The Anglican communion has been on a steady decline since I left to become Eastern Orthodox.

There is no reason for you to feel responsible, since there are still substantial numbers of conservatives in the C of E.

 

[The Liturgist]

It has not been taken lightly, and it has not been easy; it has been fraught, and painful, and the point they've got to pleases very few people

My view is that these types of compromises have a toxic effect because the debates required to arrive at them poison the two sides against each other, and this increases the likelihood of schism, since the two sides are now so troubled with each other, and schism is what I am opposed to, St. Clement if I recall said schism is the worst kind of heresy.

You raise a valid point also in that most people who really wanted such a blessing have joined one of the other British churches which offers it, such as the Methodists or the Scottish Episcopal Church or the United Reformed Church or the Unitarians, etc, but there are a number of extremely loyal Anglicans who are also gay. It is also my experience in the UK that there still exists, even now, a demographic that regards membership in the Church of England as patriotic and virtuous, and this is part of the reason why there are extreme Anglo Catholic parishes like All Saints Margaret Street that formed long after being Roman Catholic lost social stigma.

Although on the other hand in the case of St. Magnus the Martyr, they are so Anglo Catholic that some disaffected traditional Catholics are known to go there, in that it is a place where one can get on occasion a Traditional Latin Mass or a hybrid of that mass with the Anglican liturgy. If’s a very unique parish that is probably the most high church parish in the Anglican Communion.

 

[BobRyan]

Just to be painfully pedantic, the C of E has not voted to conduct or bless same-sex marriages. It has voted for trial use of liturgies which can be used to bless persons who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage (not blessing the marriage, but blessing the people who happen to have been married). That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is an important theological and liturgical point (and the only reason the proposal got enough votes to pass).

It didn't come from nowhere. The C of E has been engaged in a process of intentional reflection and dialogue around the pastoral needs of LGBTIQ+ people, and the theology of sexuality, marriage, and so forth, for some time (I think six years or so?) You can find out more by looking up "Living in Love and Faith." It has not been taken lightly, and it has not been easy; it has been fraught, and painful, and the point they've got to pleases very few people (in that the conservatives are carrying on as if the world is ending, and the liberals are feeling it doesn't go anywhere near far enough).

Based on what I've seen in Australia, I suspect very very few people will have any interest in using such liturgies anyway. It's not as if there are vast numbers of faithful churchgoing Anglicans in civil same-sex marriages who have just been waiting for this moment to arrive.

Question -- does blessing the person in the marriage indicate approval at any level ?

For example if one says that same-sex marriage in an abomination as noted in Lev 18 - are we then supposed to think that blessing someone engaged in what scripture calls an abomination - means that the sin in question is now approved of?.

For example (for the sake of illustration) Could one be engaged in child inappropriate content and then receive a blessing "in that context" where the idea is not to bless child inappropriate content - but rather to bless the person? It seems to me that blessing such a person promotes the idea of decreasing the sense in which what the Bible calls "sin" - is to be viewed as really being "sin". Is that how the C of E views it?

What is the motivation within the C of E to bless/approve people engaged in something that the church condemns, where that blessing is coming in the specific context of the sin which is condemned?

 

[BobRyan]

My view is that these types of compromises have a toxic effect because the debates required to arrive at them poison the two sides against each other, and this increases the likelihood of schism

which is the bigger problem ?

The schism or the fact that part of the church wants to open that door for what it now calls sin?.

 

[The Liturgist]

which is the bigger problem ?

The schism or the fact that part of the church wants to open that door for what it now calls sin?.

Schism, definitely. St. Clement taught that schism is worse than heresy. There are churches which have recovered from heresy; schisms are harder to recover from.

 

[Paidiske]

My view is that these types of compromises have a toxic effect because the debates required to arrive at them poison the two sides against each other, and this increases the likelihood of schism, since the two sides are now so troubled with each other,

Honestly, refusal to have the debate is just as toxic. The issues do not go away, and people feel ignored and uncared for by their church. And since the debate is not had openly, it is instead a matter of discussion in separate bubbles and echo chambers in which the other side is more readily demonised, rather than engaged with, with Christian charity and respect.

You raise a valid point also in that most people who really wanted such a blessing have joined one of the other British churches which offers it, such as the Methodists or the Scottish Episcopal Church or the United Reformed Church or the Unitarians, etc, but there are a number of extremely loyal Anglicans who are also gay.

This is true; my point is not so much that gay Christians have gone to other denominations, it's that even gay Anglicans are unlikely to find this a satisfactory option. For the last three years I've served in a diocese which makes provisions for such blessings. I have had zero - (let me count them again, yep, zero) - requests for such a blessing.

What is the motivation within the C of E to bless/approve people engaged in something that the church condemns, where that blessing is coming in the specific context of the sin which is condemned?

Bearing in mind that I am not in the C of E, but I think my cultural context is similar, I think the basic pastoral reality is this; there are homosexual people who are faithful members of our churches. Some of those people are in same-sex marriages. And there are conflicting theological anthropologies and understandings of sexuality and marriage in our members and even our leaders. And there is a profound desire to care for everyone (this is even more pressing in the C of E because of its status as an Established church), acknowledge and celebrate what is good - including the faith and love and hope of our LGBTIQ+ members - while holding a theological understanding of marriage which has some integrity with our tradition.

And the reality is that there is no easy way to do all of those things, so the church has, through very fraught dialogue, reflection, prayer and discernment, tried to work out what it can do that is both pastorally helpful and at least not a theological dealbreaker for most. Since we already bless people, and don't withhold that blessing because they have committed or are committing this or that sin, that is one way forward which is, if not welcomed, at least not utterly abhorrent to most. And it is, because of the technical avoidance of any blessing of the marriage itself, not in contravention of any existing canon law.

If that makes sense?

 

[BobRyan]

Schism, definitely. St. Clement taught that schism is worse than heresy.

So if the whole church crosses over and joins in promoting heresy -- that is much preferred to only part of the church doing it??

Seriously?

There are churches which have recovered from heresy; schisms are harder to recover from.

When you look at all the wide variety of doctrines on the same topic that oppose each other -- does it really appear to you that doctrinal error was really that easy to get rid of?

Do you have examples of church with the exact same doctrine being in schism?

 

[BobRyan]

Honestly, refusal to have the debate is just as toxic. The issues do not go away, and people feel ignored and uncared for

I fully agree that having a discussions is much preferred to ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away by not talking about it.

But at some point - the problem has been fully explored and the only remaining issue is that some folks still see it different from others. It looks like that is where the C of E is on this one.

 

[The Liturgist]

So if the whole church crosses over and joins in promoting heresy -- that is much preferred to only part of the church doing it??

Seriously?

No, that’s not what I am saying. If the entire church became heretical, except for your parish, they would be in schism with you by default.

In the Church of England there are still doctrinally orthodox parishes, indeed probably most of them are still orthodox. So it would be wrong for a schism to occur at this point. I posted another thread on the subject of schisms and tagged you in it.

 

[The Liturgist]

When you look at all the wide variety of doctrines on the same topic that oppose each other -- does it really appear to you that doctrinal error was really that easy to get rid of?

Do you have examples of church with the exact same doctrine being in schism?

Forgive me, I don’t quite understand the question. I can cite many examples of churches that had heretical parishes or which were entirely heretical and schismatic, but fixed the problem and re-entered into communion with orthodox churches. Indeed I even know of a non-Christian cult that converted en masse to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and became a normal part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) with no trace of their old beliefs left, the Holy Order Of Mans (HOOM).

 

[The Liturgist]

With Fiducia Supplicans, the Roman Catholic Church is now also blessing sodomitic relationships.

Is it just me or does the timing on this seem suspicious?

Either way, it is extremely sad seeing two of the last hold outs capitulate within the space of two months.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Question -- does blessing the person in the marriage indicate approval at any level ?

For example if one says that same-sex marriage in an abomination as noted in Lev 18 - are we then supposed to think that blessing someone engaged in what scripture calls an abomination - means that the sin in question is now approved of?.

For example (for the sake of illustration) Could one be engaged in child inappropriate content and then receive a blessing "in that context" where the idea is not to bless child inappropriate content - but rather to bless the person? It seems to me that blessing such a person promotes the idea of decreasing the sense in which what the Bible calls "sin" - is to be viewed as really being "sin". Is that how the C of E views it?

What is the motivation within the C of E to bless/approve people engaged in something that the church condemns, where that blessing is coming in the specific context of the sin which is condemned?

Good questions and good points Bob
I have been in prayer about this as it is terribly troubling, considering Pope Francis is now attempting to do the same thing.

I am but dust and a worm and am open to correction from those with authority, but I will share the answer that I have received from prayer, scripture and tradition.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there is not one soul for whom Christ did not suffer and die. It is why He asked the Father to let the cup pass from Him. He would gladly suffer for His friends that love Him, but He also suffered and died for those that would reject Him, as John 3:17 says he that believes not is condemned already because he has rejected the only Son of God.
We are all made in the image of God, yet not all possess the same sexuality. Jesus mentioned Eunuchs. They do not have sex yet they still serve God with their bodies. Some would have companionship from a member of the same sex.

The Bible tells us of relationships between members of the same sex and even describes it as love. The difference is that is does not involve bodily abuse of the genital organs for pleasure’s sake. Relationships can be blessed. The act of sodomy cannot.

The Church teaches chastity as the proper virtue. He who commits fornication sins against his own body. We think that if some one is heterosexual they are ok. Not so, heterosexuality is not a mark of virtue as masturbation, inappropriate content, extramarital sex, incest and pedophilia are all mortal sins that are extremely disgusting though heterosexual in nature. Chastity is also why the Church teaches that contraception is evil, as it allows a couple to live as a homosexual, chasing sex for pleasure only, devoid of the true intent of the marital act. In the eyes of the Church, there is no difference between contraceptive sex and homosexual sex, they are both equally sinful and one not to be preferred above the other.


A man or woman of God is not to be compelled to in heterosexual sex, nor to prefer or enjoy it. Heterosexual acts very enjoyable for those following the commands of God and is blessed by the love of the family and the Church. Sin is not blessed whether homosexual or heterosexual

This is how I can see a chaste person receiving a blessing. In this modern environment, however, we see the increase in scandal as most would not believe the same sex relationship chaste, nor is there a way to prove it
In order for it to line up with scripture, the Church has to teach chastity in all relationships. Married couples need to know that they must repent of sins against chastity just as same sex relationships

The question arises that if a same sex relationship is chaste, why do they need a blessing? Could it be a public declaration of Chastity similar to the ones priests and religious make? I don’t know

What I do know is that no soul should be denied the mercy of God should he seek it as a broken spirit and contrite heart. Sodomy is a grave sin against God and His holy commandment and can never be blessed. We are all the communion of saints and need to encourage one another in chastity for the greater glory of God, and not our pleasure only.


Peace be with you

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Schism, definitely. St. Clement taught that schism is worse than heresy. There are churches which have recovered from heresy; schisms are harder to recover from.

I agree in that in heresy one’s mind is wounded, yet the Church remains to preach correction. In schism, one has said in his heart that he is to rise up against the body of Christ Himself. We have the example of David, upon whose throne Our Lord now sits, that never was a man more justified in schism as well as having motive and opportunity, yet he could not bring himself to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed.

If David could not do it, who are you o man to lift his hand to tear the body of Christ asunder?

The word you is a general term and not directed @theLiturgist. We all need to self reflect on this

 

[RileyG]

With Fiducia Supplicans, the Roman Catholic Church is now also blessing sodomitic relationships.

Is it just me or does the timing on this seem suspicious?

Either way, it is extremely sad seeing two of the last hold outs capitulate within the space of two months.

The document should have never been written.