• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Trump is in violation of the canons of the Episcopal Church

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by FireDragon76, Dec 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +10,264
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Others
    St. Ambrose vs Emperor Theodosius
    Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, ch. 17

    "Thessalonica is a large and very populous city, belonging to Macedonia, but the capital of Thessaly and Achaia, as well as of many other provinces which are governed by the prefect of Illyricum. Here arose a great sedition, and several of the magistrates were stoned and violently treated.

    The emperor was fired with anger when he heard the news, and unable to endure the rush of his passion, did not even check its onset by the curb of reason, but allowed his rage to be the minister of his vengeance. When the imperial passion had received its authority, as though itself an independent prince, it broke the bonds and yoke of reason, unsheathed swords of injustice right and left without distinction, and slew innocent and guilty together. No trial preceded the sentence. No condemnation was passed on the perpetrators of the crimes. Multitudes were mowed down like ears of grain in harvest-tide. It is said that seven thousand perished.

    News of this lamentable calamity reached Ambrosius. The emperor on his arrival at Milan wished according to custom to enter the church. Ambrosius met him outside the outer porch and forbade him to step over the sacred threshold. 'You seem, sir, not to know,' said he, 'the magnitude of the bloody deed that has been done. Your rage has subsided, but your reason has not yet recognised the character of the deed. Peradventure your Imperial power prevents your recognising the sin, and power stands in the light of reason. We must however know how our nature passes away and is subject to death; we must know the ancestral dust from which we sprang, and to which we are swiftly returning. We must not because we are dazzled by the sheen of the purple fail to see the weakness of the body that it robes. You are a sovereign, Sir, of men of like nature with your own, and who are in truth your fellow slaves; for there is one Lord and Sovereign of mankind, Creator of the Universe. With what eyes then will you look on the temple of our common Lord— with what feet will you tread that holy threshold, how will you stretch forth your hands still dripping with the blood of unjust slaughter? How in such hands will you receive the all holy Body of the Lord? How will you who in your rage unrighteously poured forth so much blood lift to your lips the precious Blood? Begone. Attempt not to add another crime to that which you have committed. Submit to the restriction to which the God the Lord of all agrees that you be sentenced. He will be your physician, He will give you health.'
    "

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  2. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,353
    Romania
    Christian
    Married

    Er I don’t know about the rest of the post but I just find those political myths annoying. The Obama administration didn’t ban anyone from anywhere, there was a 6 month slow down period when tighter controls were introduced, the number of Iraqis issued US visas in that year wasn’t reduced, and visas were issued/people admitted during the 6 months, it was just that additional checks were applied.
     
  3. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Episcopalian Supporter

    +1,006
    Anglican
    Married
    I am no fan of Donald Trump. I am among his strongest critics, and find his wrapping himself in Christianity highly suspect as little more than political posturing. That said, the communion table of the Episcopal Church is open to all baptized Christians and I would have it no other way.

    Every Sunday we have all sorts of sinners and broken people gathering around the common cup seeking grace bestowed by Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Part of our Baptismal covenant in The Episcopal Church calls for us to "...strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." Although I find Mr. Trump repugnant, that applies to him to. He is a Child of God made in His image, no different than me.
     
  4. Paidiske

    Paidiske Bodily member Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,322
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    It's an interesting question.

    Two thoughts come to mind:

    1) If this is a question of Eucharistic hospitality (ie. President Trump is not a member of TEC nor of a church in communion with TEC, but is being given communion there in recognition of common baptism), then I think there is less reason to deny communion. We do not offer such hospitality but then make it contingent on conformity with our own standards, but look to whether someone is a communicant member in good standing of their own church. I do not know what stand on this matter President Trump's "home" church might have.

    2) If - and it's a big IF - one were to seriously ask, should I deny President Trump communion, I would imagine that there would be other issues of public scandal which would also need to be considered. This is not the only, and perhaps not the clearest, possible grounds on which to do so.

    My thoughts - as an Anglican in communion with TEC, although outside it - are that if President Trump (by some unimaginable coincidence) were to show up at my communion rail as an occasional visitor, I wouldn't deny him communion. If he were to become a member of my parish, we would be having a long pastoral conversation covering much ground, and quite possibly some form of reconciliation, before I would be willing to commune him regularly.
     
  5. Norbert L

    Norbert L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +313
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    I haven't heard anything about this. Have you or anyone else brought this issue to the attention of the person overseeing that specific Episcopal Church? In Canada where I reside there is a similar issue with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his stance on abortion not being in line with the Roman Catholic Church. It seems to me in both cases, getting a response from the churches involved should be a first step.
     
  6. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    +467
    Non-Denom
    Single
    The Episcopalian Church ordained a lesbian bishop in 2010. Is that a violation of their canons? It seems worse than baking a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Trump has no control over the Supreme Court. There are separations of powers to preserve democracy and oppose tyranny. Trump himself is being investigated for obstruction of justice and is being sued for multiple instances of sexual harassment.
     
  7. HereIStand

    HereIStand Regular Member Supporter

    +1,617
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Married
    I would assume that Episcopal hierarchy voted for Hillary, as did most of its members. That said, I can't seem them ever denying Trump communion.
     
  8. nonaeroterraqueous

    nonaeroterraqueous Impractical Rat

    744
    +440
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    That's not much of a canon. If the Episcopal church can't get its canon in line with the Bible to some reasonable extent, then I'm not sure why it concerns a Christian forum what their bylaws are. We might as well be arguing the bylaws of the Auto Club of America.

    (And you just made me feel guilty for not voting for Trump. Please don't do that)
     
  9. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,371
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    My Church believed that very firmly. Following that belief, we slaughtered several million Lutherans in the 1500s and 1600s.

    We have since changed our minds (not about the wrongness, but about how we react to it.)

    Now we say that we DO have to respect consciences that are wrong, and that everybody else should. We should respect people who firmly adhere to wrong ideas that they believe are right, and try to get along with them, not crush them.

    That's why we no longer violently crush people who adhere to wrong religion. We live and let live.

    Which is what we should be doing with the gays, and what gays should be doing with regards to Christian bakers who have crises of conscience about decorating a gay wedding cake. There are lots of cake makers. No reason to torment THAT one.

    Prediction: the Supreme Court will come down on the side of the cake maker. But when the racists try to extend that logic to discriminating against blacks (as those hateful idiots always do) the Supreme Court and the bulk of society will crush them. There is no religious interest in discriminating against blacks. Religion that says there is, is not acceptable in the USA, like Aztec human sacrifice.

    If you're looking for the principle by which these positions hang together, it is this: oceans of blood were not shed in this country over gay rights, so religious practice can be taken into account.

    Oceans of blood WERE shed over the oppression of blacks in this country, and a raging dogfight of 170 years duration was fought in this country over black slavery and discrimination. So THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE is different from all others, not intellectually or abstractly, but because the two sides killed each other in massive numbers over it, and my side won. We won, by violent force, in war, and by the threat of more violent force - that's all that ever worked against America's black-hating racists. The only thing American racists understand is fear, force and death, so we have to keep on administering it to them whenever they pop up. They lost THEIR right to be tolerated by fighting too hard.

    So, that's the difference. Gay rights are like Lutherans and Catholics agreeing to disagree and leaving each other alone on religious matters. But black rights and the privation thereof are like Aztec human sacrifices that we are not going to tolerate - human life is more important than human religion, and black rights are more important than the rights of racists. Why? Because we won the war and we have the force to impose our will, and the anger to continue to do so.

    In the case of black rights, might makes right and the subject is not open to be relitigated. If the racists try, they are silenced swiftly and brutally, by force - legal and armed - and people like me are happy to see the racists crushed down: they're still the treasonous enemy, and it will be open season on them for the rest of the existence of this country.

    Gay rights are different. That's an argument that requires balancing the equities. Leave the gays alone and let them have legal forms that let them transfer property and rights? Fine. Impose on religious people to force them to do something against their beliefs? No way. Gays are not blacks. They were not enslaved, raped and segregated for three centuries. And no civil war was fought by the rest of us to crush out the racism.

    Prediction: the Supreme Court will find for the baker, because it has to.
    Prediction: the racists will whinge they THEY are being discriminated again.

    Answer: that's true. We DO discriminate against anti-black racists. And that's perfectly legitimate in America: they are traitors who launched a civil war and killed huge numbers of people. We won. Victors justice means that Americans have the right to beat down, torment, discriminate against, and deny opportunity to anti-black racists for the rest of our existence. It is, in fact, the right thing to do. And it's fun.

    So, all of this hatred - channel it into beating up people who hate blacks. They deserve it. Poor Christian bakers don't.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  10. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +783
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    So - because he refuses to support behavior that God has said is "worthy of death," he is "in violation of the canons of" an alleged CHURCH?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  11. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,115
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Episcopalians are Christians as per Christian Forum rules. The fact they have different ethics from your kind of churches doesn't change that.

    All the Episcopalians I've known personally have been good Christian people that love Jesus.
     
  12. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,115
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Victom13, that's an interesting perspective. I just have trouble wrapping my head around how the LGBT community is not in fact like blacks. I've known people who have suffered horrible physical abuse because of the fact they were LGBT. Plenty of blood HAS been spilled.
     
  13. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Episcopalian Supporter

    +1,006
    Anglican
    Married
    I'd say The Episcopal Church's open communion table to baptized Christians is very much in line with the Bible, which records that at the celebration of the Passover meal when Christ gave us the sacrament of communion, our Lord washed the feet and gave the morsel to the disciple He knew was to betray him. If Jesus can serve Judas Iscariot, I suppose The Episcopal Church can serve Donald Trump.

    I think 1 Corinthians 11:27 lays the responsibility on the communicant, not the Church to decide who is worthy to commune. "Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself..."
     
  14. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,115
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Thank you for your reply, it helps give some clarity to the issue. I'm not so sure that hospitality should involve setting aside canon law for someone who is a regular attendee. Trump may use the lack of church membership as a way to get past any kind of communal responsibilities, and that's part of the problem, the Episcopal Church has commitments in mission to LGBT persons, to commune with LGBT persons is also to uphold their dignity as human beings.

    I'm starting to respect the closed communion position more as a result of this. I don't believe in barring just anybody from the sacraments, but the Anglican principle of reserving the right to bar notorious public sinners makes more and more sense, and I'm not sure how it can withstand the "hospitality" emphasis that has become popular.
     
  15. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,115
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    That's a good point. Anglicans at one time gave warnings before communion, as did Lutherans. Our Lutheran churches used to have a conditional absolution, even, with a warning to repent. OF course, times have changed and that theology has been questioned in favor of "all inclusive love", but I wonder if we haven't become too light about talking about sin. I am not advocating for hellfire preaching but we have become slack in talking about anything like God's law beyond politically expedient causes that cost us very little.

    Mainline churches are committed in theory to LGBT people's dignity, but seems to have spoken out very little on the matter of bakers,florists, photographers and weddings. My pastor says its because the churches have become weary, and perhaps that is true, there is no more political capital to spend on gay rights in our communities.
     
  16. buzuxi02

    buzuxi02 Veteran

    +1,186
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Its irrelevant as much as the Episcopal Church. Neither Trump nor Melania is Episcopalean. They simply pay off a fancy episcopalean church in Palm Beach near his resort for religious ceremonies. Trump self identifies as a presbyterian and Melanie as a Roman catholic.
     
  17. seeking.IAM

    seeking.IAM Episcopalian Supporter

    +1,006
    Anglican
    Married
    The Episcopal Church doesn't consider sharing the Eucharist to be a private club gathering. Our table is open to all baptized Christians, including Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. Christ wanted all of His church to be one. I think it begins when we can gather around the table with each other. This is very important to me and is probably the primary reason I became Episcopalian rather than Eastern Orthodox, but I would never be so uncharitable as to call your church irrelevant.
     
  18. Phil 1:21

    Phil 1:21 Well-Known Member

    +1,986
    Christian
    Married
    I suspect you are correct.
     
  19. GingerBeer

    GingerBeer Well-Known Member

    +452
    Christian
    Private
    Donald Trump said he gropes women and kisses them without consent. That ought to be grounds for some sort of rebuff.
     
  20. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,115
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    But that's how the church in Palm Beach is appearing, like it's double-minded religious theater. How can a church confess one thing and do another? In our church that does not make sense. I really think Episcopalians need to put "justification by good taste" aside and get back to focusing on the real Jesus, who had harsh words for those in power who marginalize and exclude others who are vulnerable.

    A Jesus who is merely nice to everyone is not the real Jesus.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...