(Please note: the article to which this letter is responding may be found here).
The Anglican bishop featured in the article did not have (or seek) permission from the local Anglican bishop as is required to even be present on official church business. His presence violates protocols among Anglican dioceses and bishops, and violates the Windsor agreement in which bishops were asked not to do what this bishop did in visiting this congregation.
The bishop’s comments about the Episcopal Church are also unfortunate and divisive. It is scandalous that an Anglican bishop would foment division in this way.
I believe that your article is unbalanced and misleading in its reporting of the Episcopal Church. While this is likely unintended, nevertheless a reader could easily be confused by its content. Certain teachings presented in the article could be understood by readers to be factual teachings of the Episcopal Church. The article suggests in comments that the Episcopal Church is heretical and disintegrating. On the contrary, the Episcopal Church affirms its faith in the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, is growing in many areas and is doing much good ministry among the faithful.
Yes, on paper the Episcopal Church has a foundation of orthodox Christian doctrine supports the faith once delivered, but in General Convention, they refused to confirm that and public practice all across the nation, the Episcopal church has committed heresy, syncretism, idolatry, has promoted and permitted sexual sin and has denied the faith and diety of Jesus Christ and the reality and the necessity of the Cross and Resurrection from the head of the church on down.
It would seem that we can expect to hear, in reaction to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration, a great deal of noisy denial and backtracking and professions of faith in Jesus Christ. However, there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
TEC has freely used the “abandonment of communion” against clergy going to AMiA. Thus TEC admits that it is not in communion with AMiA. So what’s the problem? Complaine against the Baptists and The Roman Catholics too.
In any event Windsor is dead because TEC never complied with it and “crossing diocesan borders” was conditioned on that.
This priest sounds sincere but uninformed regarding the general situation in ECUSA and the theological/theosophical comments made by many of the revisionist bishops now running ECUSA.
Also, does he know why a group of former ECUSANs would want to form a new Anglican congregation outside of ECUSA and under AMiA?
By the way StandFirm is compiling a list of TEC heresies and theological/theosophical comments that AnglicanFirst mentions.
Does Bishop Spong, apparently a member in good standing of the TEC, believe in the divinity of Christ?
The Stand Firm “Document the Heresy” thread is here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13902/
Please add any citations you are aware of, thanks!
Father Ritter’s comments are really quite unsurprising – I have many dear friends in the Diocese of Louisiana who firmly believe those very things.
When I found that I no longer believed them, and had lost confidence in the pastoral leadership of the ECUSA, I faced the stark ecclesiological crisis that besets so many. The urge to “stay” was strong; most of my friends and colleagues chose to do so. But “staying” was destroying me and my family, embittering us and poisoning our life of faith. The question became, “Where to go?”
We could not in good conscience walk the pathway of the REC or any of the various alter-Anglican groups, though many people of good will did choose to do so. We pondered the Roman option, which became the choice of some other dear friends. In the end, we found a home in the Orthodox Church. It has been a difficult move, often bewildering, but we’ve come to believe that we are entering into the fullness of the true Faith – homecomings are often perilous.
The mess of Anglicanism was one we couldn’t endure; the mess of Orthodoxy is one where we find Life, in spite of it all.
May God have mercy on us all as we stumble along the path of salvation. And glory to God for all things!
I repeatedly her fellow priests claim, “The Episcopal Church has not changed its teachings.” Sadly, this is deceitful, to say the least. For example, for a candidate for bishop, he must be living a Godly life
according to the Prayer Book. To elect an openly practicing homosexual to that office means, per se, that the Church is thereby changing its teacing to include an active homosexula lifestyle as a Godly form of behavior. Otherwise, the candidate would not have been approved by General Convention. To state otherwise is simply either selfserving or, at worse, a lie. Sadly, many lay people in the pews rely on their priests to tell them whats what. Those clergy who refuse to truthfully inform their laity will have to answer for that on the Last Day.
I have but one thing to say: Fr Ritter, unless and until The Episcopal Church reforms themselves and absolutely repudiates everything they’ve done during the past forty years, we will not break bread with you.
I am still at a loss to understand the concept of “disallowing” an Anglican primate from visiting a NON Episcopal church. Is it true that to even visit a Methodist or an Assembly of God Church, a Nigerian bishop must have permission from the Episcopal bishop in the diocese?
Additionally, as one who has worked with the Episcopal Church in New Orleans post-Katrina, I would hate to say we have been LEADERS in its rehabilitation: active and enthusiastic workers, yes, but apparently not the leaders. I rarely see coverage citing the Episcopal Church. It is usually an ecumenical activity. As it should be, Praise God!
TEC is named by our Lord in Revelation 2:9.
And Revelation 2:20
Drjoan, I remember when several years ago, a visiting British bishop was introduced to Bishop Bennison by another clergyman from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, and when Bennison saw him in his purple shirt and collar, he exploded “What are you doing in MY diocese?” Thank God that not every bishop acts like he did, but your question is a valid one, I believe.
Rev. Ritter is like many Episcopal priests. They choose to ignor the turmoil generated elsewhere so long as it doesn’t effect their world. Obviously this small gathering of believers did so, however benignly. Rev. Ritter’s knee-jerk “letter to the Editor” makes him seem small and condescending. He should be ashamed of himself.
#14- Anyone who can knowingly act as if he just CANT figure out what all the fuss is about concerning ECUSA’s persistent, growing, & obvious apostasy-and I don’t think that Rev. Ritter lives in a closet [no pun intended]-by glossing the situation over with fine sounding words doesn’t have much shame to begin with. I believe that this is what the prophet Ezekiel refers to as covering over the truth of the matter with whitewash. And as the LORD spoke through the prophet, this covering-along with the “wall” it covers-will be torn down.
“Belief in the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ are the bedrock of the Episcopal faith.”
Its so easy to preach and make a statement, is it not?
Its not so easy to live by what you preach. Belief in the divinity of Jesus? What does that mean? Is it statement or a belief which convicts one of the sin against the divine? And thereby calling darkness as darkness and sin as SIN.
What planet is Rev. Ritter living on?
I both sympathize with comments above but must remind what the central issue of the letter is.
(For the record the congregation I serve is not far from Trinity. The parents of one of Trinity’s clergy worship with us regularly. No names. My kids for years were in Trinity’s summer camp. I drive by Trinity several times per week.)
On the one hand Fr Ritter either does not understand or downplays the dire situation in TEC. I side strongly with the “orthodox”.
On the other hand look at this from his point of view. You have a [i]newspaper article in which a visiting bishop makes a bunch of comments about TEC[/i]. When person x talks about organization y – I think a good reporter will at least try to include a response from organization y. (Whether you like organization y or not is not the point.) Some of the parishioners in the article left Trinity. Fr Ritter might legitimately be concerned that negative impressions are left of [i]Trinity[/i] specifically. (Why did they leave Trinity? Because of that specific parish? Or because of the TEC in general? The reader is left to wonder.)
“the Episcopal Church affirms its faith in the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, is growing in many areas and is doing much good ministry among the faithful.”
ROTFLM@O!