The Episcopalian Church Is at The Edge of Religious Irrelevance

By FRANK MORRISS

THE WANDERER

Anglicanism, that is, the religion of an English established church whose head on earth is the British monarch, began based on one of those monarchs   self-serving judgment that he could marry as many times as necessary to produce a male heir. Henry VIII at first veiled that seizure of authority from its legitimate possessor, the Bishop of Rome, in scruples about the validity of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

He made a private interpretation of Scripture to argue his vows with the Spanish princess were invalid because she had been once married to his deceased brother, Arthur.  Rome rejected his petition for an annulment from Catherine on the grounds a dispensation had been granted from whatever impediment might be involved, and later, Catherine, defending her marriage to Henry, insisted the marriage to 16-year-old Arthur (even then sickly) had never been consummated. Her confessor, Bishop John Fisher, argued in her favor, and he above all others would have known if in fact the marriage to Henry’s brother was complete (ratum et consummatum). 

For his several other marriages, Henry could find no other argument other than that he by his own declaration, approved by a supine Parliament, was head of the Church in England, and could do as he wished.

All of this defied the clear evidence in Scripture that putting ones wife away and taking another is adultery, as well as the fact that Christ made Peter, who became Bishop of Rome, as His Vicar on earth, and that the Church had recognized the Bishop of Rome and no other as having that title and authority to teach, govern, and bind and loose. In breaking with that authority, Henry and all who accepted his schism which rapidly evolved into full-blown heresy, reduced religion to being simply what its constituents, whether citizens, monarchs, or clerics or those pretending to be clerics, want it to be.

All of that must be kept in mind in considering the decision of the Episcopal Church, an offshoot or sprout of Anglicanism, that a man living in a feigned state of spousal relationship with another man, having split from his wife and children to do so, is fit to be a bishop.

Indeed, spokesmen for the majority that voted approval of this promotion of an Episcopal cleric to hierarchical status have proclaimed him more than fit for the job they have praised him as deeply spiritual, exemplary in his ministry, a paragon of priesthood deserving the rank to which they have lifted him by his invisible halo, as it were.

That this is a step toward recognizing marriage of homosexuals is admitted by supporters of this decision, one of whom (the bishop of the Episcopal seminary) said it is just a matter of bringing along reluctant Episcopalians to accepting such a step. Approval for blessing such marriages awaits the community’s arrival at the point the homosexual activists and their supporters have planned? the debauching of the marriage of man and woman by putting homosexual acts on its level.

The New Hampshire bishop-elect at the center of this parody of religion said Episcopalians are on a learning curve that will lead them to accept gays in every position of authority, which of course minimizes the real intention, that it will be an acceptance not only of their sexual appetites, but of their indulgence in those appetites by sodomy and other unmentionable sexual acts, none of which is in keeping with the decent and natural purpose of the sexual faculties given us by our Creator. The only learning curve Christians should be on is toward obeying, serving, and following Christ as closely and perfectly as possible, which includes being chaste.

Therefore, any genuine learning curve to be followed by Christians leads to Christs teaching, rather than away from it. And one of those teachings is that lust is forbidden to the Masters followers, and that sex is to be used to make man and woman one flesh. The Church has always accepted that Christ made this nuptial union analogous to His own union  with His Church. It is therefore blasphemous to even consider equating the lustful acts of homosexual sex with marriage, and it is sacrilegious to attempt to dignify such unions with a blessing or liturgy, which the Episcopal Church is on it way toward doing.

Make no mistake, two major evils are involved here? lust and pride, the claim of autonomy in the matter of sexual use and the claim of righteousness in asserting lust is virtue rather than vice.

There is little chance the Anglican Church, the schismatic root of Episcopalianism, will intervene effectively in what its brash American offspring is doing. For one thing, there is no effective authority at hand to do it. Just as the formal head of that Church? the British monarch? is a figurehead, her primate-designate, the archbishop of Canterbury, is as well. Even if he had effective power, the present holder of that office is an earth, fire, and wind worshiper. It is not likely he would be overly shocked at the desire of some within the church he heads to appear costumed as fauns, frolicking after one another piping the music of the Lupercal.

After all, the Anglican Church has surrendered traditional opposition to contraception, abortion, female clergy, divorce. It would be naive to think it will now take a stand against its shepherds engaging in objectionable activities of all sorts, and even being admired for doing so. The argument that God loves everyone is attractive in an egalitarian age that insists what one does would never be counted against the good God’s desire to have all saved. Further, the revolt against the nature and meaning of human acts in favor of fides sola or even good intentions suggests that Heaven is guaranteed.

Indeed, the truth that God loves everyone is now taken as that very guarantee. That overlooks that the crucial question for God’s creatures is? do they love God?

It’s easy to answer that question with ? of course! But then, what did Jesus mean when He said, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And what is the meaning of the parable that tells of seven foolish virgins denied entry to the wedding feast because they let the oil of their lanterns burn out?

There is not a hint of scriptural teaching, including that of Christ, that sexual satisfaction alone can provide the substance of marriage.

But there is direct testimony aplenty that the use of sex to bring new lives into being is such substance. God makes woman to be man’s companion; the command to Adam is to increase and multiply. Jesus reminds His listeners that at the beginning the creation was of man and woman who can become one flesh, and for that reason any putting away of one’s wife and remarriage involves adultery. The only nuptial blessing given by Christ was at Cana.

St. Paul condemns the desire of man for man, woman for woman in no uncertain terms. And thus for those who believe in the inerrancy of scriptural teaching, in the protection of the valid episcopal college from error, must surely accept that sodomy is a major departure from that teaching, and therefore a grave sin which, if not sincerely repented and resisted, would disqualify any candidate for that college.

The decline of sexual morality in the West, and even within what citadels of Christianity as remain, is the evil fruit of a totally personalist, subjective moral jurisdiction by each individual. The privacy claimed in matters of sex? even extending to reproduction? is simply an assertion of autonomy of the individual in that area of life. It makes no matter if that is the case what any other authority says, even when it is the authority of Christs Church, headed by His Vicar on earth, or the recorded authority of God’s word.

Sexual sins amount to Adam's choosing to eat of the fruit that God ordered him to forgo in Eden. Not all sexual sins are of equal malice, and there may be subjective mitigation of guilt in their regard. But if sodomy and other deviant sexual use are not seriously immoral, then surely no other sexual use can be condemned, either in or outside of marriage. Give in regarding homosexual sex, and every city becomes Sodom, every person becomes a potential citizen of Gomorrah.

None of the above is meant to insult or denigrate or even discourage sincere Anglicans or Episcopalians. And undoubtedly some may be ignorant of the issues involved in the origins and directions of their denominations. But most educated persons of those churches must recognize some facts of history. They must recognize how the Church of England drifted into a state of indifference to the meaning of apostolicity, entering a state of quasi-Protestantism and surrendered the full sacramentalism (most disastrously the Mass) that it kept at its very beginning (though for only a matter of months).

If they know anything about the revolt of the Non-Jurors against the acceptance of Protestant royal houses by the Church of England, and of the later Oxford Movement that attempted to revive Anglicanism’s historic link to the Church before Henrys schism and Elizabeth’s heresy, then they will know the direction of their church has been toward doctrinal and moral dissolution from the beginning.

The last serious chance for Anglicanism to choose either the substance of Catholic faith or the path to irrelevance was the issuance of John Henry Cardinal Newmans Tract 90 of the Oxford Movement. That attempted to establish a compatibility of Anglicanism’s 39 Articles of Faith with the ancient Creeds and interpretations of Catholicism. The Anglican authorities of the early 19th century used Newmans tract as an excuse to silence the Oxford Movement. Many Anglicans, especially Oxfordians, went to Rome with Newman; many, many more remained with an Anglicanism now revealed as determined to resist any challenge to its presumptions to be genuinely linked to the Church Christ founded.

That has led to the present moment, when it is clear the congregational idea of being whatever members of the community want it to be puts the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches on the edge of total religious irrelevance. Gradually, if those churches do not step back from that possibility, they will merge with the prevailing culture no matter how pagan, indecent, perverted, or diabolic that culture might become.

Other Protestant churches have already become pale shadows of Christianity, even the Christianity of their Reformation founders. A few islands of resistance to that fate remain, but it is unlikely these can remain long above the tides of secular morality (more properly, immorality).

In attempting to be relevant to such culture, Christian churches become more and more irrelevant. That is proving itself true even within some areas of the Catholic Church. Modernist theology and thought are becoming more and more unattractive, more and more like a senile nonagenarian who has lost his memory along with his recognizability as something meaningful to the following of Christ. What is prospering is traditional Catholicism faithful to the Church’s beginnings and the ongoing stream of Tradition as a parallel Revelation to Scripture.

That will be a bulwark for the Catholic Church as it rejects such enormities as gay unions, women clergy, trial marriage, legalized adultery, vice converted to virtue, sin mutated into sanctity. And reject it will, for the promise was made to the Church built upon the Rock who was Peter and now is each of his Successors, . . . and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

It should be clear to all who have the purity of heart that enables them to have a true religious vision that such protection was not given any other church, as those gates prevail more and more over the purely human claim to hold divine credentials.

END