Originally posted by Zach82:
That's the usual case against +Schori. "She hasn't actually said anything heretical- she just means it. We can tell."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches would go further and say it is not liturgical tradition (as described above) but Church Tradition, guaranteed by Christ himself through the Holy Spirit, which encompasses the Creeds and Bible.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
...
In the Early Church there was liturgical tradition long before before there was a common creed and before there was an officially sanctioned biblical canon. These liturgical traditions provided the theological framework for establishing the creeds and canon.
quote:All three existed from the very begining. They had Jewish liturgy, Jewish doctrine, and Jewish scriptures because they started as Jews. There never was a church that didn't have a canon of Scripture. Of course they changed it a little when they added the New Testament.
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
In the Early Church there was liturgical tradition long before before there was a common creed and before there was an officially sanctioned biblical canon.
quote:given the clear use (in most though not all instances) of the Septuagint by the New Testament authors, my vote would be for the Septuagint over the Tanakh as the Jewish canon in 30 AD.
Originally posted by ken:
Nothing, because the Tanakh was the canon of Scripture. (Probably - Torah & prophets certainly)
quote:The NT is written in Greek for Greek speakers so it isn't surprising the Greek translation of older Hebrew or Aramaic writings would have been used. It is probable none of the writers of the NT knew Hebrew (except maybe Paul). However other Jews did know Hebrew and did use the Hebrew versions (scribes weren't called scribes for nothing) and the Rabbinic tradition that survives (other traditions didn't) to this day uses the original Hebrew.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:given the clear use (in most though not all instances) of the Septuagint by the New Testament authors, my vote would be for the Septuagint over the Tanakh as the Jewish canon in 30 AD.
Originally posted by ken:
Nothing, because the Tanakh was the canon of Scripture. (Probably - Torah & prophets certainly)
quote:I don't disagree with most of what you say. Though I am unsure as to how much Hebrew was actually used at the time even among Jewish communities - I hear Jesus spoke Aramaic. For me the question to be asked is not "What was the Jewish canon in 30AD?", but rather "What was the Jewish canon among the Christian sect at about that time?" I feel we are heading into tangent territory and do not wish to derail from Ken's point about there having been a scriptural canon or even canons among Jews at the time of Christ.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:The NT is written in Greek for Greek speakers so it isn't surprising the Greek translation of older Hebrew or Aramaic writings would have been used. It is probable none of the writers of the NT knew Hebrew (except maybe Paul). However other Jews did know Hebrew and did use the Hebrew versions (scribes weren't called scribes for nothing) and the Rabbinic tradition that survives (other traditions didn't) to this day uses the original Hebrew.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:given the clear use (in most though not all instances) of the Septuagint by the New Testament authors, my vote would be for the Septuagint over the Tanakh as the Jewish canon in 30 AD.
Originally posted by ken:
Nothing, because the Tanakh was the canon of Scripture. (Probably - Torah & prophets certainly)
quote:Oh, there's doctrines, and Articles, and then there's constitutions, and there's canons (of the law kind, not the two-footed kind or the bang bang kind), and there's standing orders, and there's ...
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't knows what counts a doctrine or something else but the Episcopal church definitely has rules, like strictly limiting who is allowed to say certain prayers or blessings.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:From your mouth to God's ear
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For non-essentials, such as the historic Episcopate and the nature of the Eucharist, .
quote:Silly me. One part of my brain was so focused on spelling Tanakh correctly that the part in charge of content failed to notice that Torah was the word I wanted.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:given the clear use (in most though not all instances) of the Septuagint by the New Testament authors, my vote would be for the Septuagint over the Tanakh as the Jewish canon in 30 AD.
Originally posted by ken:
Nothing, because the Tanakh was the canon of Scripture. (Probably - Torah & prophets certainly)
quote:Hmmm ... that's quite a Lutheran sounding set of questions to ask any Episcopalians.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What do you think? Does the Episcopal church have doctrine, yes or no? And what does doctrine mean to you? Does your church have doctrine? In what is it embodied: liturgy, declarations, canons, etc.?
quote:Josephus, writing somewhat later than AD 30, wrote
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
ken, around the year AD 30, outside of the Tanakh, what was the canon of scripture?
quote:So we have the law, the prophets, the psalms, proverbs, and two others. I'm not sure how he gets thirteen prophetic books from the eight (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "The Twelve") of the modern Jewish count, but it could be done in a number of ways. Scholars have made various proposals. Possibly he divides and combines books differently from the modern Jewish count, or possibly he is making up some of the slack using some books (Daniel? Ruth? Nehemiah?) that the modern count designates "Writings" rather than "Prophets".
We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past time; which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.
--Against Apion 1.8
quote:I've spent a lot of time with Lutherans. OK, so maybe this explains an exchange I had with the same friend, where I said Christianity is about belief, and she said something like "of course it isn't, what gave you that idea?" and I'm thinking, "we say the Nicene creed at every service! We're asked to affirm the Apostle's creed at baptisms! And (here comes the, possibly misunderstood by me, Lutheran influence) Paul says we can't win our salvation by our own works, so it can't be a religion about what we do."
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:Hmmm ... that's quite a Lutheran sounding set of questions to ask any Episcopalians.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What do you think? Does the Episcopal church have doctrine, yes or no? And what does doctrine mean to you? Does your church have doctrine? In what is it embodied: liturgy, declarations, canons, etc.?
quote:It makes no sense that someone must be examined to be a lay member of the church, while atheists can become bishops. Does your presiding bishop believes in christianity and things like the ressurrection, incarnation, etc, as anything more then significant metaphors? Are there some bishops who even believe that stuff? Is it ok that John Spong basically said most of the Bible was pure bollocks, that Jesus body has probably been eaten by worms, and still carried on being a bishop in this denomination for years? It would be better not to "say" the creeds during the liturgy at all, if none of that stuff is meant to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At confirmation, we're examined again. We have beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, articulated through the liturgy. So I think all that adds up to doctrine.
quote:If people lose their faith, and don't leave the church, what do you recommend? Heresy trials?
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:It makes no sense that someone must be examined to be a lay member of the church, while atheists can become bishops. Does your presiding bishop believes in christianity and things like the ressurrection, incarnation, etc, as anything more then significant metaphors? Are there some bishops who even believe that stuff? Is it ok that John Spong basically said most of the Bible was pure bollocks, that Jesus body has probably been eaten by worms, and still carried on being a bishop in this denomination for years? It would be better not to "say" the creeds during the liturgy at all, if none of that stuff is meant to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At confirmation, we're examined again. We have beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, articulated through the liturgy. So I think all that adds up to doctrine.
quote:Demonstrate what you have said.
It is interesting that Zach, who studies at a Roman Catholic seminary, can see the need to present basic Christian (and Anglican) doctrines clearly. My feeling is that someone from the local Anglican theological college in Brisbane might not be able to do this presentation. Years ago the late Bishop Stephen Neill commented on the theological ignorance of the average Anglican ordinand. Not much seems to have changed since he said this.
quote:For the millionth time...
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:It makes no sense that someone must be examined to be a lay member of the church, while atheists can become bishops. Does your presiding bishop believes in christianity and things like the ressurrection, incarnation, etc, as anything more then significant metaphors? Are there some bishops who even believe that stuff? Is it ok that John Spong basically said most of the Bible was pure bollocks, that Jesus body has probably been eaten by worms, and still carried on being a bishop in this denomination for years? It would be better not to "say" the creeds during the liturgy at all, if none of that stuff is meant to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At confirmation, we're examined again. We have beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, articulated through the liturgy. So I think all that adds up to doctrine.
quote:Didn't you know Spong, Schori, and Robinson are the only bishops we have ever had?
For the millionth time...
Most of Bishop Spong's more radical beliefs were expressed after he retired. No one has ever stated that Spong's opinions reflected the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, I think he would be the first to say that his views are not representative of the majority of the Episcopal Church.
quote:Just the title of the thread told me that's what it was about.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Ho hum. I was wondering how long it would be before this interesting and intelligent thread was derailed into the standard Piskiebash --
Not long at all -- here it is!
spong spong spong spong spong spong spong spong
Bored now, no longer interested in things people may say here.
quote:Your problem is that they (and Pike), whether fairly or unfairly, define you in the larger Christian community and beyond, and indeed to many within TEC itself.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Didn't you know Spong, Schori, and Robinson are the only bishops we have ever had?
For the millionth time...
Most of Bishop Spong's more radical beliefs were expressed after he retired. No one has ever stated that Spong's opinions reflected the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, I think he would be the first to say that his views are not representative of the majority of the Episcopal Church.
quote:It is entirely unfair, but that doesn't stop certain *ahem* individuals from continuing to harp on such examples. Imagine if you will the thread title was say Do pedophile priests define the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Your problem is that they (and Pike), whether fairly or unfairly, define you in the larger Christian community and beyond, and indeed to many within TEC itself.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Didn't you know Spong, Schori, and Robinson are the only bishops we have ever had?
For the millionth time...
Most of Bishop Spong's more radical beliefs were expressed after he retired. No one has ever stated that Spong's opinions reflected the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. Indeed, I think he would be the first to say that his views are not representative of the majority of the Episcopal Church.
quote:If that's what the thread title told you, then I regret choosing the title poorly. That's not what I was interested in when I posed the OP. There's much more here to consider than other people's caricature of the Episcopal church.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:Just the title of the thread told me that's what it was about.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Ho hum. I was wondering how long it would be before this interesting and intelligent thread was derailed into the standard Piskiebash --
Not long at all -- here it is!
spong spong spong spong spong spong spong spong
Bored now, no longer interested in things people may say here.
quote:I left the Episcopal Church for several years at one point over the matter of belief. What eventually enabled me to go back was taking a history of religion course, and talking about myth as the stories that are truer than truth. (Any inaccuracies here are entirely my doing, and not the fault of the lecturer.) So I got to a very low ebb in my life, and I thought, "I don't know if these really happened, and I don't know if God exists, I don't even really believe that God exists, but I belive in something very strongly and God is the best word I know for it; plus the Christian stories are, for better or worse, the stories I grew up with, so they are the stories that resonate for me."
Originally posted by tclune:
AR, I find the notion of belief quite unhelpful when I discuss the importance of the Church in my faith life. For me, the things that the Church adds to my faith journey are a language for talking about things that are very hard to put into words and many stories and references that can aid in the attempt to give voice to the spiritual aspect of my life. Personally, I find the rampant spiritualism of the day such thin gruel that I marvel that anyone can blather in its tongues without laughing at the idiocy of it all. And I find the attraction to other cultures' spiritual traditions disingenuous and imperialistic, with all the patronizing overtones that implies. As Peter said, "To whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life."
quote:We most certainly do have doctrine, and it's largely expressed through our liturgy. We don't have doctrines that are unique to the Episcopal Church, and I like that. Being an Episcopalian is thus simply one way to practice Christianity.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I was in a conversation recently with a friend who said the Episcopal church (TEC) doesn't have any doctrine. I disagreed, and although I didn't say it this clearly then, what I think is that there's a lot of doctrine expressed through our liturgy.
quote:Oddly, I both can identify with what you write and find myself in a very different place. As I have aged, I have come to shed the belief that other people (at least the deep and wise ones, of course) are just like me. I find myself less able to view other traditions as being open to me at all, and I find my Christianity both more fully reflective of who I am and more idiosyncratic. While I think that faith is essentially communal, it does not seem to be particularly public, if that communicates at all.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not even sure I know what a faith life is, but I suppose I have one even if I can't define it, but it is becoming more eclectic and I am finding value in other sources alongside Christianity.
quote:I'm not sure I understand, which is a reflection on me rather than you.
Originally posted by tclune:
I have come to shed the belief that other people (at least the deep and wise ones, of course) are just like me. I find myself less able to view other traditions as being open to me at all, and I find my Christianity both more fully reflective of who I am and more idiosyncratic. While I think that faith is essentially communal, it does not seem to be particularly public, if that communicates at all.
--Tom Clune
quote:I think it's more like saying that I appreciate jazz, but I don't have a well-developed sense of how other afficionados are responding to it. While the stimulus appears to be the same, the response is often quite different in ways that I am unable to predict.
Originally posted by Garasu:
Is this equivalent to saying "I can only appreciate jazz music." (Which would be communal in the sense that there's a whole group of people who appreciate jazz music; but not public, in the sense that some people just don't get it)?
quote:What does "redeemed by Christ" mean? How does it change how we live our lives?
If we don't live as if we believe we're redeemed by Christ, do we truly believe it? And by "believe" I don't mean "give intellectual assent to" -- I mean, "stake our lives on." [/QB]
quote:Not unless they go around proclaiming that their lack of belief *is* the correct faith--which is pretty much what Spong does.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:If people lose their faith, and don't leave the church, what do you recommend? Heresy trials?
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:It makes no sense that someone must be examined to be a lay member of the church, while atheists can become bishops. Does your presiding bishop believes in christianity and things like the ressurrection, incarnation, etc, as anything more then significant metaphors? Are there some bishops who even believe that stuff? Is it ok that John Spong basically said most of the Bible was pure bollocks, that Jesus body has probably been eaten by worms, and still carried on being a bishop in this denomination for years? It would be better not to "say" the creeds during the liturgy at all, if none of that stuff is meant to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At confirmation, we're examined again. We have beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, articulated through the liturgy. So I think all that adds up to doctrine.
quote:However, IME they must tend to keep fairly quiet about it around the laity. I don't think the reverend clergy, especially bishops with jurisdiction or active pastoral responsibilities, nor priests with an active cure of souls, should be preaching/teaching contrary to that which is set forth in the Creeds. That doesn't preclude engaging critically with the Creeds, the Tradition in general, with the pronouncements of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils, and with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. This engagement is properly an opening to broadened understandings of the foundational notions advanced by the dogmatic formularies; yet not overturning or blatantly contradicting the creedal definitions of the the nature and inter-relationships of the Triume God, Christ, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, amongst some primary points. Within the established dogmatic framework of historic Christianity there ought to be ample room for creative exposition and speculation, but orthodoxy requires that we frame this engagement with the conceptual parameters of the received formularies. Thus, for example, creative reflection on the meaning of a Triune Deity of one "substance" expressed as three distinct "persons" is to be welcomed, but by the same token that engagement should steer clear of modalism and unitarianism, even if using those "heresies" as reference points with which we may struggle to reconcile orthodox Trinitarianism. IME this is what more theologically erudite Anglican clergy attempt to do. It's the less bright, less well-read and well educated Episcopal clergy who sometimes stray - inadvertently IMO - into formal heresy.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I just don't think Spong's views are all that uncommon among Episcopal clergy. I've heard it with my own ears. I'm in a position to know.
quote:I certainly would like it if Spong had done that, as I find him wanting to remain in the church a little bizarre. My point is that, given what he has done, what should be the response? We have two choices (a) formal disciplinary procedures, basically a trial for heresy or (b) challenge his views, teach and affirm orthodox Christianity. This is the approach taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others. I think it's the right one. One of the strengths of Anglicanism is the ability to entertain more than one idea. Do we really want to go back to the sort of ideas of discipline that saw tractarians sent to prison in the 19th Century?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not unless they go around proclaiming that their lack of belief *is* the correct faith--which is pretty much what Spong does.
I'm aware that Spong is a fringe case in TEC in many ways. What scandalizes me about him is not that he doesn't believe, but that he is permitted to teach his non-belief without censure. If I woke up one morning and found that I no longer believed the Christian faith, I would leave my clericals in the closet, resign my position, and take up a hobby on Sunday mornings--it would be only honorable. [/QB]
quote:Are you sure the Episcopal Church accepts all of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils? I thought it was just the first four.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
...with the pronouncements of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils, and with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
quote:There's a big difference between saying "I find the Trinity a bunch of codswallop, but I'm struggling to stay in rather than leave" and saying "The Trinity? Why the hell do you believe that crap?"
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Where in your church, if at all, is it acceptable for someone to discuss doubts, up to and including, "I find the Trinity a bunch of codswallop, but I'm struggling to stay in rather than leave"? Or would you rather they leave? (Or some other alternative that I'm not envisioning yet; I don't mean to be unfairly presenting you with a dichotomy if you think there's some other way.)
quote:The acceptance of the councils of the undivided universal Church is implied, but not explicitly defined in any confessional document (since Anglicans - unlike Lutherans - don't possess those). Conservatively, the first four Councils would certainly be accepted, plus the Christological statements emanating from the latter three Councils. I think the general attitude is to accept the Seven Councils of the undivided Church, though probably not to look too closely at some of the less central pronouncements or to consider that every jot and tittle is any longer relevant. Certainly, the high dogmatic formulations of the Councils are ascribed, especially by High churchmen and Anglo-Catholics.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Are you sure the Episcopal Church accepts all of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils? I thought it was just the first four.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
...with the pronouncements of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils, and with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Anyway, I don't think some of the current Presiding Bishop's views are 1000 miles away from some of what Spong has taught. She doesn't seem to believe in the uniqueness of Christ, the Final Judgement, nor heaven either.
No-one can argue that the Episcopal Church doesn't have doctrine, it just seems that the clergy are at liberty to pick and mix or reject bits of it as they please - there is no discipline.
quote:I have an intuition that many contemporary American Episcopalians likely either struggle to reconcile their problems with formal doctrinal formulations on the one hand, with their lived experience of the sacraments - especially of the Holy Eucharist - on the other, or simply suppress their doubts about doctrines in favour of here and now faith in the sacraments. IOW, it is possible to have a lively faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, yet be full of doubts and questionings regarding the nature and mechanics of the Incarnation, the meaning of salvation, judgement and the life of the world to come.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:There's a big difference between saying "I find the Trinity a bunch of codswallop, but I'm struggling to stay in rather than leave" and saying "The Trinity? Why the hell do you believe that crap?"
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Where in your church, if at all, is it acceptable for someone to discuss doubts, up to and including, "I find the Trinity a bunch of codswallop, but I'm struggling to stay in rather than leave"? Or would you rather they leave? (Or some other alternative that I'm not envisioning yet; I don't mean to be unfairly presenting you with a dichotomy if you think there's some other way.)
The former is a case where pastoral counseling and support can help the person make his decision. The latter is plainly divisive and bad behavior, and it shouldn't be tolerated.
I suppose I don't believe that there is an inherent value to a person being in a church if he's not down with their program. If you don't believe in the Incarnation, then receiving the Sacrament won't do you much good, and indeed if Paul's to be believed it's likely to do you harm!
quote:Yes, that sounds about right - I just looked it up a few minutes ago, and it is as clear as mud!
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The acceptance of the councils of the undivided universal Church is implied, but not explicitly defined in any confessional document (since Anglicans - unlike Lutherans - don't possess those). Conservatively, the first four Councils would certainly be accepted, plus the Christological statements emanating from the latter three Councils. I think the general attitude is to accept the Seven Councils of the undivided Church, though probably not to look too closely at some of the less central pronouncements or to consider that every jot and tittle is any longer relevant. Certainly, the high dogmatic formulations of the Councils are ascribed, especially by High churchmen and Anglo-Catholics.
quote:Well this brings us straight to the point of what minimal beliefs should be in the Anglican Communion.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...
I suppose I don't believe that there is an inherent value to a person being in a church if he's not down with their program. If you don't believe in the Incarnation, then receiving the Sacrament won't do you much good, and indeed if Paul's to be believed it's likely to do you harm!
quote:No. Not ordaining them priests and bishops and not allow them to use the pulpit to preach atheism would be enough.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:If people lose their faith, and don't leave the church, what do you recommend? Heresy trials?
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:It makes no sense that someone must be examined to be a lay member of the church, while atheists can become bishops. Does your presiding bishop believes in christianity and things like the ressurrection, incarnation, etc, as anything more then significant metaphors? Are there some bishops who even believe that stuff? Is it ok that John Spong basically said most of the Bible was pure bollocks, that Jesus body has probably been eaten by worms, and still carried on being a bishop in this denomination for years? It would be better not to "say" the creeds during the liturgy at all, if none of that stuff is meant to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At confirmation, we're examined again. We have beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, articulated through the liturgy. So I think all that adds up to doctrine.
quote:That boat sailed when ECUSA refused to try Pike in the 60s.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I certainly would like it if Spong had done that, as I find him wanting to remain in the church a little bizarre. My point is that, given what he has done, what should be the response? We have two choices (a) formal disciplinary procedures, basically a trial for heresy or (b) challenge his views, teach and affirm orthodox Christianity. This is the approach taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others. I think it's the right one. One of the strengths of Anglicanism is the ability to entertain more than one idea. Do we really want to go back to the sort of ideas of discipline that saw tractarians sent to prison in the 19th Century?
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Not unless they go around proclaiming that their lack of belief *is* the correct faith--which is pretty much what Spong does.
I'm aware that Spong is a fringe case in TEC in many ways. What scandalizes me about him is not that he doesn't believe, but that he is permitted to teach his non-belief without censure. If I woke up one morning and found that I no longer believed the Christian faith, I would leave my clericals in the closet, resign my position, and take up a hobby on Sunday mornings--it would be only honorable.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
LSK, very true. But I think there is also something to be said for the virtue of docility, which is underappreciated these days. Sometimes the work is just conforming yourself to the mind of the Church, and doctrinal problems have to be bracketed as ongoing projects to be tackled with prayer and study.
quote:Indeed. I think this is also what many churchmen essentially do. The "big questions" are put on the back burner, the formularies are not actively rejected, and one hopes to come to some better understanding of things with the passage of time and with continued engagement in the life of the worshiping Church. The sacraments are, of course, a great aid to faith, and especially so in an ongoing fashion the reception of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I think we do well to exhort our congregations to persevere in the sacramental life, again especially in attending Mass and receiving the Eucharist, and trusting in God, whom in any event we see only as through a glass darkly. After all, it isn't actually by faith that we are said to be saved - for that would just make of our "faith" another work - but rather - and crucially - by grace received (apprehended) through faith. I would hope that Episcopalians get most of their theological propositions from the liturgies of the Book of Common Prayer, whilst trusting in the efficacy of the sacraments and the availability of grace. It's one thing to speculate about ultimate mysteries, but in the end one has, I think, to decide to leave things up to God and really not worry too much about the mechanics of formulations of other humans who were struggling to articulate ultimate mysteries. The lived experience of the sacraments of the Church ultimately trumps intellectual teachings, but of course the sacraments are themselves theological statements. I really tend to think this is how a large number of our people engage with the Christian religion. Hence, the meanderings of a Spong or any other modernist theologian just aren't that important or resonant to most of our folks (if indeed even known).
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
LSK, very true. But I think there is also something to be said for the virtue of docility, which is underappreciated these days. Sometimes the work is just conforming yourself to the mind of the Church, and doctrinal problems have to be bracketed as ongoing projects to be tackled with prayer and study.
quote:What if their views arise after ordination or consecration? I'm not certain but I would be surprised if it were possible to go through discernment without it being picked up and raised as an issue that you didn't actually believe in God, given how rigorous the process usually is.
Originally posted by gorpo:
No. Not ordaining them priests and bishops and not allow them to use the pulpit to preach atheism would be enough.
quote:She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, I don't think some of the current Presiding Bishop's views are 1000 miles away from some of what Spong has taught. She doesn't seem to believe in the uniqueness of Christ, the Final Judgement, nor heaven either.
quote:I agree that it's all ultimately a matter of faith, although doctrines like the Trinity require one to grasp a sort of aesthetic appreciation of the concept, explicated, to be more than the most naive sort of affirmation (not using "naive" in a pejorative sense, mind you). The Trinity is an intellectual proposition. Perhaps for some relatively few persons it eventually becomes an experienced reality this side of eternity. The Eucharist is more an experience than an intellectual proposition, and that fundamentally experiential nature of the Eucharist in turn assists ones grasp in faith of what is an intellectual proposition, namely the Real Presence of Christ under the outward forms of bread and wine.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
LSK, very true. But I think there is also something to be said for the virtue of docility, which is underappreciated these days. Sometimes the work is just conforming yourself to the mind of the Church, and doctrinal problems have to be bracketed as ongoing projects to be tackled with prayer and study.
Our understanding of the Eucharist makes no sense apart from the Incarnation. Any benefit derived from participating in the Eucharist should be counted as evidence in support of the Incarnation. Believing in the validity of the Eucharist requires no less faith than believing in the Incarnation or the Trinity. You either accept the whole thing by faith or you don't. None of it is any more or less rational than any of the rest.
Spong and his ilk never made it out of the 19th century. Their whole project is nothing but arrogance and elitism masquerading as reason. They worry more about how they appear to the cultured despisers of Christianity than they do about other Christians. I could care less what atheists think of Christianity. Who cares if the cultured despisers think one church they have nothing to do with is slightly less wrong than another church they have nothing to do with? Spong and his ilk, that's who.
quote:I expected nothing less. There's a crowd that hangs around, hoping some poor Piskie will raise his head above the parapet so they can start throwing stones at him, and the stones always make the same sound as they hit
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seems the Episco-bashing has begun in earnest. Sigh.
quote:I have to admit, I just kind of pulled that off the top of my head as something we're asked to believe. And I can't say how it would change how we live our lives. But I think if I truly believed Christ did something spectacular for me, I'd live as if I were more valuable.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:What does "redeemed by Christ" mean? How does it change how we live our lives?
If we don't live as if we believe we're redeemed by Christ, do we truly believe it? And by "believe" I don't mean "give intellectual assent to" -- I mean, "stake our lives on."
quote:They should resign.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:What if their views arise after ordination or consecration? I'm not certain but I would be surprised if it were possible to go through discernment without it being picked up and raised as an issue that you didn't actually believe in God, given how rigorous the process usually is.
Originally posted by gorpo:
No. Not ordaining them priests and bishops and not allow them to use the pulpit to preach atheism would be enough.
quote:I'm not going to pretend the Episcopal Church doesn't have its problems. But it's not the sickness unto death.
Posted by Grammatica: I expected nothing less. There's a crowd that hangs around, hoping some poor Piskie will raise his head above the parapet so they can start throwing stones at him, and the stones always make the same sound as they hit
quote:
Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.
Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.
quote:I cannot answer for others but I can answer what it means to me and and how it changes how I live my life.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:What does "redeemed by Christ" mean? How does it change how we live our lives?
If we don't live as if we believe we're redeemed by Christ, do we truly believe it? And by "believe" I don't mean "give intellectual assent to" -- I mean, "stake our lives on."
quote:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
quote:Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
quote:Obviously. My point is what should the church do if they don't?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They should resign. [/QB]
quote:I imagine Katharine+ would preach a number of Easter sermons as Presiding Bishop. If she didn't believe in the Resurrection, then why would she spend her time and energy composing and preaching homilies about it?
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
quote:Do you ever wonder whether people who seem to say that actually believe more than they'd like to admit to, even to themselves.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I have an intuition that many contemporary American Episcopalians likely either struggle to reconcile their problems with formal doctrinal formulations on the one hand, with their lived experience of the sacraments - especially of the Holy Eucharist - on the other, or simply suppress their doubts about doctrines in favour of here and now faith in the sacraments. IOW, it is possible to have a lively faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, yet be full of doubts and questionings regarding the nature and mechanics of the Incarnation, the meaning of salvation, judgement and the life of the world to come.
quote:Slander. Her theology is rather airy at times, but it takes a rather malicious mind to interpret it as heresy. Thus, Gorpo- who pours out bile against the Episcopal Church endlessly even though he lives thousands of miles away from +Schori and doesn't even know a single Episcopalian.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
If so, she should not be a bishop and should not have allowed herself to be put forward to be one.
Or is that just the slanders of her enemies?
quote:We are talking about Episcopal Church doctrine here:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:I imagine Katharine+ would preach a number of Easter sermons as Presiding Bishop. If she didn't believe in the Resurrection, then why would she spend her time and energy composing and preaching homilies about it?
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
Now of course, she might have quibbles with the notion that the Resurrection being a physical resuscitation. It has been voiced by some liberals who have trouble with the idea that Jesus was physically resuscitated, emphasizing the notion that Jesus was spiritually raised from the dead. I don't believe IMHO, that orthodoxy is dependent on arguing over specific details though I believe in a physical Resurrection, myself. To me, the important thing is that Jesus Christ is an active and living Reality today, which is what the Resurrection really points to.
All this is speculation. If she really denies the Resurrection, I would like to see a reference to actual sermon that she preached or an article that she wrote.
quote:It isn't slander or malicious to call heresy, heresy is it? Granted we have to be careful to get our facts right.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Slander. Her theology is rather airy at times, but it takes a rather malicious mind to interpret it as heresy. Thus, Gorpo- who pours out bile against the Episcopal Church endlessly even though he lives thousands of miles away from +Schori and doesn't even know a single Episcopalian.
quote:Why do you presume to know more about people's beliefs than they do themselves?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do you ever wonder whether people who seem to say that actually believe more than they'd like to admit to, even to themselves.
quote:This suggests to me a failure of imagination about how belief, lack of belief, and experience can intertwine.
Whatever one might claim, I would have thought it's actually quite difficult to believe in the reality of the Eucharist, to take it seriously, and not believe in what it represents.
quote:It's slander to call heresy where heresy is absent.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It isn't slander or malicious to call heresy, heresy is it? Granted we have to be careful to get our facts right.
quote:Not all clerics are as you describe.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not really interested in the views of notorious clerics in the Episcopal church. Nor in procedures for clergy having crises of faith. I'm much more interested in what life is like in the pews for laity.
...
quote:Continuing, God willing, if more dioceses don't follow suit behind South Carolina's actions today.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:Not all clerics are as you describe.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not really interested in the views of notorious clerics in the Episcopal church. Nor in procedures for clergy having crises of faith. I'm much more interested in what life is like in the pews for laity.
...
If there is discussion on Christian doctrine in the Anglican Church it would seem beneficial that the clergy, particularly theologians, become involved.
Clergy and laity are basically two sides to the same coin. Neither can exist in isolation.
There were and are plenty of non-dysfunctional clerics around who can enrich this hopefully continuing discussion.
quote:Sir Pellinore, I reread my post and realized that it could be read the opposite of what I meant. I meant, I'm not interested in posters' posting the usual complaints about Spong and Schori. I also meant to say I'm not interested in the judgments about what a priest should do who loses their faith, but on reflection, I am interested in the discussion that it might start about what one should do in crises of faith. What should one do when some parts of the faith and practice of the church make sense and other parts don't? The making sense part might be at a visceral level, rather than on a purely intellectual level. The not making sense part might keep intruding, no matter how much one might try to emulate a docile sheep trusting in mother church. And yet one isn't ready to chuck the whole thing.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not really interested in the views of notorious clerics in the Episcopal church. Nor in procedures for clergy having crises of faith.
quote:I don't know anything about South Carolina. For me, it is another country and a long, long way away. But why this assumption that every time people have a serious disagreement, they have to split from one another? This has historically been as destructive as the counter belief that the person in the centre has to prescribe everything. Does Jesus Christ have two bodies?
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Thinking about South Carolina, I reflect on the statements of the core beliefs and doctrines of the Episcopal church, to which I linked earlier. And I wonder how divergent can the views become about what those mean and how they should be interpreted, and still have the divergent views all contained in the same organizational church? Add in then deeply held positions about the actions to which those beliefs commits one, which again are divergent to the point of being completely opposed to each other. Can this much disagreement be contained in the same church, or does a split become practically inevitable?
quote:Is that really true? Apart from the arrogance, it would mean it shouldn't get many visitors and should have less ability to do harm.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
... Spong may be long retired, but on his pay-per-view website ...
quote:Here's a brief summary:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about South Carolina. For me, it is another country and a long, long way away.
quote:What can't speak can't lie:
quote:Is that really true? Apart from the arrogance, it would mean it shouldn't get many visitors and should have less ability to do harm.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
... Spong may be long retired, but on his pay-per-view website ...
quote:So it's about sex then, nothing to do with the Presiding Bishop's theological views. A person's views on homosexuality have naff all to do with whether they hold to orthodox Christian theology.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Here's a brief summary:
Episcopal Drama Rocks SC
quote:No, actually it has everything to do with the Presiding Bishop's views, which have become TEC's "new" orthodoxy. As far as sexuality is concerned, you are not allowed to have a view if you are a Bishop, unless it corresponds exactly with her's.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it's about sex then, nothing to do with the Presiding Bishop's theological views. A person's views on homosexuality have naff all to do with whether they hold to orthodox Christian theology.
quote:I suggest that the Spanish Inquisition be sent with thumb screws and the lash to scoop her up and find out.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
If so, she should not be a bishop and should not have allowed herself to be put forward to be one.
Or is that just the slanders of her enemies?
quote:Good points and a certainly subject for a new thread on the Diocese of South Carolina (Charleston) situation.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Thinking about South Carolina, I reflect on the statements of the core beliefs and doctrines of the Episcopal church, to which I linked earlier. And I wonder how divergent can the views become about what those mean and how they should be interpreted, and still have the divergent views all contained in the same organizational church? Add in then deeply held positions about the actions to which those beliefs commits one, which again are divergent to the point of being completely opposed to each other. Can this much disagreement be contained in the same church, or does a split become practically inevitable?
quote:Is there any church you don't attend that you're not an expert on? Please, tell me what I believe.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:No, actually it has everything to do with the Presiding Bishop's views, which have become TEC's "new" orthodoxy. As far as sexuality is concerned, you are not allowed to have a view if you are a Bishop, unless it corresponds exactly with her's.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it's about sex then, nothing to do with the Presiding Bishop's theological views. A person's views on homosexuality have naff all to do with whether they hold to orthodox Christian theology.
quote:With the greatest of respect Mockingale I have spent most of my life as an Anglican. Wouldn't you expect me to know a little of what goes on in this church?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Is there any church you don't attend that you're not an expert on? Please, tell me what I believe.
quote:Eh, orthodoxy is completely dependent on believing in the bodily resurrection: Luke 24:39
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:I imagine Katharine+ would preach a number of Easter sermons as Presiding Bishop. If she didn't believe in the Resurrection, then why would she spend her time and energy composing and preaching homilies about it?
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
Now of course, she might have quibbles with the notion that the Resurrection being a physical resuscitation. It has been voiced by some liberals who have trouble with the idea that Jesus was physically resuscitated, emphasizing the notion that Jesus was spiritually raised from the dead. I don't believe IMHO, that orthodoxy is dependent on arguing over specific details though I believe in a physical Resurrection, myself. To me, the important thing is that Jesus Christ is an active and living Reality today, which is what the Resurrection really points to.
All this is speculation. If she really denies the Resurrection, I would like to see a reference to actual sermon that she preached or an article that she wrote.
quote:As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:With the greatest of respect Mockingale I have spent most of my life as an Anglican. Wouldn't you expect me to know a little of what goes on in this church?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Is there any church you don't attend that you're not an expert on? Please, tell me what I believe.
quote:I don't know the entire history, but it looks like one of those feuds that's been going on for a while. I don't know how you can amend your constitution to deny the authority of the national church and declare your diocese to be the superior authority on canon law, and put in a deadman's switch clause (automatically withdrawing the diocese if TEC does anything to interfere) and then feign surprise when the national church comes down on you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am sure the bishop of South Carolina imagines he is being kicked out because of a gay agenda, but he's been trumpeting "withdrawal" from the Episcopal Church basically from the moment he was elected. The fact that he thinks he can take his diocese with him just proves the point after the fact.
Indeed, now that I read the story more closely, he's been planning schism for years.
quote:We are ALL Episcopalians if we are Anglicans.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
quote:All you've told us about YOUR views is that you think she's a heretic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:We are ALL Episcopalians if we are Anglicans.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
Anyway, why not be constructive and tell us why you disagree with my views?
quote:Or perhaps she just thinks that it's not right to dehumanize other people on the basis of how God created them.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:No, actually it has everything to do with the Presiding Bishop's views, which have become TEC's "new" orthodoxy. As far as sexuality is concerned, you are not allowed to have a view if you are a Bishop, unless it corresponds exactly with her's.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it's about sex then, nothing to do with the Presiding Bishop's theological views. A person's views on homosexuality have naff all to do with whether they hold to orthodox Christian theology.
quote:Actually he has hedged even on that
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:All you've told us about YOUR views is that you think she's a heretic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:We are ALL Episcopalians if we are Anglicans.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
Anyway, why not be constructive and tell us why you disagree with my views?
You were no more an Episcopalian than I am a member of the Anglican Church of Japan. Each has their own hierarchy and their own internal issues.
quote:To be honest, just reading the linked article gave me a headache. Either Bishop Schori is a heck of a lot cleverer and more knowledgable than me and talking way over my head (this is pretty likely) or it's a load of prevaricating waffle to avoid giving a simple (and headline worthy) answer. It could well be both, of course.
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's the usual case against +Schori. "She hasn't actually said anything heretical- she just means it. We can tell."
quote:Mark Betts, if there is one thing I've learnt from the Ship, it's that to a fairly ordinary member of the CofE, the ECUSA is a much more foreign place than technically being in Communion might imply, and I suspect vice versa.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:With the greatest of respect Mockingale I have spent most of my life as an Anglican. Wouldn't you expect me to know a little of what goes on in this church?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Is there any church you don't attend that you're not an expert on? Please, tell me what I believe.
quote:Is the Scottish Episcopal Church not Episcopalian? I don't understand why your american branch see's itself as THE Episcopalian Church.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
You were no more an Episcopalian than I am a member of the Anglican Church of Japan. Each has their own hierarchy and their own internal issues.
quote:Oh, is that what I meant? No, I'm not getting into a discussion about sexuality and the Episcopal Church, except to suggest that there is more than one viewpoint, and it isn't about dehumanizing anybody at all.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Or perhaps she just thinks that it's not right to dehumanize other people on the basis of how God created them.
quote:Well, you MIGHT be a heretic and a genocidal murderer to boot, eh? But I'm not actually accusing you of either. You just might be.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is the Scottish Episcopal Church not Episcopalian? I don't understand why your american branch see's itself as THE Episcopalian Church.
Anyway, I haven't actually said Katharine+ is a heretic (all hell would break loose on here if I did) - I have merely implied that she might be. What do you think and why?
quote:This, by the way, is one of the things I like about the RCC. While their attention to process in disciplinary issues is sometimes very frustrating and, based on Roman law, oft puzzling to those of us more familiar with common law, their procedures require a solid basis for a prosecution, and provide the accused with a space to address them.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Well, you MIGHT be a heretic and a genocidal murderer to boot, eh? But I'm not actually accusing you of either. You just might be.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is the Scottish Episcopal Church not Episcopalian? I don't understand why your american branch see's itself as THE Episcopalian Church.
Anyway, I haven't actually said Katharine+ is a heretic (all hell would break loose on here if I did) - I have merely implied that she might be. What do you think and why?
What ridiculous about these accusations is that even the Roman Catholic Church will wait for repeated, flagrant denials of dogma before discipline against a priest is even imagined.
quote:There is no Anglican Church of Japan. Anglicans in Japan belong to Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Japanese Holy Catholic Church ). With such a cool name, you think they would have more than 57,000 members. Oh well...
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:All you've told us about YOUR views is that you think she's a heretic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:We are ALL Episcopalians if we are Anglicans.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
Anyway, why not be constructive and tell us why you disagree with my views?
You were no more an Episcopalian than I am a member of the Anglican Church of Japan. Each has their own hierarchy and their own internal issues.
quote:The point, I think (as others have indicated as well), is that you might not have the best understanding of the internal workings of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, aka The Episcopal Church.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:We are ALL Episcopalians if we are Anglicans.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
As an Episcopalian? No? Then don't presume to speak about the Episcopal Church as if you're an expert.
Anyway, why not be constructive and tell us why you disagree with my views?
quote:There is no Anglican Church of Japan. Anglicans in Japan belong to Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Japanese Holy Catholic Church ). With such a cool name, you think they would have more than 57,000 members. Oh well... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You were no more an Episcopalian than I am a member of the Anglican Church of Japan. Each has their own hierarchy and their own internal issues.
quote:It is clear from the thread about SC that mechanisms for discipline exist - fair or unfair as they may be.
Originally posted by Zach82:
This, I think, is one of the main reasons TEC has been unable to find a peaceful resolution to these matters. There isn't, and hasn't ever been, a fair disciplinary system in place for issues in the national Church.
quote:I'm not saying you were dehumanizing anyone. I am just trying to counter those who would seem sure that her (and other so-called "liberals") motivations for what she believes are, by definition, less than worthy. I cannot say with certainty what motivates either you or Bishop Schori in your innermost hearts.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Oh, is that what I meant? No, I'm not getting into a discussion about sexuality and the Episcopal Church, except to suggest that there is more than one viewpoint, and it isn't about dehumanizing anybody at all.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Or perhaps she just thinks that it's not right to dehumanize other people on the basis of how God created them.
quote:Paul Jones of Utah was convicted, but Pike of California, Spong of New Jersey and Richter (retired of somewhere which I've forgotten), were all tried for heresy but not convicted-- there may be others. While Pike was clearly guilty, enough of those against him in the House of Bishops were motivated by oppostion his (pro-civil rights) politics that, in reaction, a majority declined to convict him (obviously aware of the embarassment of the Jones conviction for heresy, a cover for a political offence of socialist sentiments and wartime pacifism-- he was later restored when emotions cooled). Spong's vague articulation of his heresy, joined with House of Bishops politics, got him out of a conviction.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:It is clear from the thread about SC that mechanisms for discipline exist - fair or unfair as they may be.
Originally posted by Zach82:
This, I think, is one of the main reasons TEC has been unable to find a peaceful resolution to these matters. There isn't, and hasn't ever been, a fair disciplinary system in place for issues in the national Church.
In the what instances has discipline of a Bishop been exercised regarding doctrine?
quote:Yes, thank you. I understand much I never understood before.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Thank you, AtA, for an excellent rundown.
quote:Without going back to the lists of those who voted and I'm not sure I could get them that easily, I would say very few. Of the Jones and Pike cases, likely none. They were respectively almost a century or a half-century ago. For Richter and Spong, perhaps a few but do remember that there were a great many votes against Richter and Spong, and most cast were by bishops representing mainline theological opinion-- Spong was saved, in part, by bishops who felt that he was a theological outlier ("dolt" and "exhibitionist" were used by bishops who voted for him) but that heresy trials were not how one dealt with things. Only a handful of bishops were ever involved in breakaway movements before the current PB and her predecessor.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:Yes, thank you. I understand much I never understood before.
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Thank you, AtA, for an excellent rundown.
Out of curiosity, how many who brought or sought to bring heresy charges against the four you've named were subsequently involved with breakaway movements?
