|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Doctrine in the Episcopal church
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Fr. Weber, what would it mean for doctrine to be binding on laity in the Episcopal church? What consequences would you like there to be for not believing the right things within the right interpretive boundaries?
[ 16. October 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Are you sure the Episcopal Church accepts all of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils? I thought it was just the first four.
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
My own jurisdiction doesn't administer doctrinal tests to anyone who's not seeking orders. But if one of our parishioners were to circulate during coffee hour scoffing at the notion of the Trinity, he would be politely but firmly asked to keep it to himself. If he continued to be a problem, he could conceivably be excommunicated--though I don't know of such a case within the last 30 years. Partly this is because the expectation of credal orthodoxy is part of our church's culture; from the top down, the faith of the Creeds is presented as non-negotiable. I don't get the same sense from most of the mainline Protestant churches these days.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
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.)
[ 16. October 2012, 21:36: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
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?"
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!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
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.
Are you sure the Episcopal Church accepts all of the first Seven Oecumenical Councils? I thought it was just the first four.
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.
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
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.)
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?"
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!
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.
[ 16. October 2012, 21:56: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Yes, that sounds about right - I just looked it up a few minutes ago, and it is as clear as mud!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
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!
Well this brings us straight to the point of what minimal beliefs should be in the Anglican Communion.
In many cases a sort of fuzzy "pastoral care" concept is substituted for genuine teaching. Consequently people do receive Communion without understanding its significance. The nexus between belief and practice is broken. It is a real problem and will not go away.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
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.
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.
If people lose their faith, and don't leave the church, what do you recommend? Heresy trials?
No. Not ordaining them priests and bishops and not allow them to use the pulpit to preach atheism would be enough.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.
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?
That boat sailed when ECUSA refused to try Pike in the 60s.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I agree.
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seems the Episco-bashing has begun in earnest. Sigh.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
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.
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
- Of course we can act like sayng "this is not important" when asked about the question is not technically denying it;
- We can act like she was a random priest in a small town congregation, and not an elected presiding bishop of the denomination;
- We can act like the only alternative of having non-believing clergy is going back to inquisition and having them burnt on stakes;
- We can act like the presiding bishop and the liberal clergy were just poor christians sincerely strugling with their faith who need pastoral help, and act like them remaining in the church despite not believing the stuff at all has nothing to do with the fact they receive stipends for it and are at a privileged position in a stablished institution.
- We can act like bishops who became agnostics after they retired have all of a sudden "lost their faith", and it´s not the case the they have always been closet atheists who remained in the church because of their stipends; ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But all of these arguments would look terribly desperate to deny the obvious, and even hilarious.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
I agree.
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.
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
So, gorpo, you've said what you're not suggesting, and what you don't like. What are you suggesting?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seems the Episco-bashing has begun in earnest. Sigh.
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
spong spong spong spong spong spong spong spong spong
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yes, Grammatica, but if we ignore it, maybe it will go away.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
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."
What does "redeemed by Christ" mean? How does it change how we live our lives?
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.
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.
They should resign.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
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
I'm not going to pretend the Episcopal Church doesn't have its problems. But it's not the sickness unto death.
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.
[ 17. October 2012, 00:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
Sure, it's all in the Prayer Book and Articles of Religion.
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
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."
What does "redeemed by Christ" mean? How does it change how we live our lives?
I cannot answer for others but I can answer what it means to me and and how it changes how I live my life.
"Redeemed by Christ" means that for the life of the world He gave Himself up. He trampled down Death by Death. Through his death came resurrection. What initially appeared to be miserable defeat was glorious victory.
How does this redemption change how I live my life? When I allow my heart and mind to be unified in this truth and lifted up to God in prayer, then I can then set my sights on living for others rather than self for that day. I can accept that death to self will somehow result in greater meaning and fulfillment. I find that when I strive to be of maximum service to others, I happen to be less preoccupied with self and generally more satisfied and content and joyful.
The Prayer of St Francis describes it superbly: 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.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They should resign. [/QB]
Obviously. My point is what should the church do if they don't?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Spong is pretty passe now. I would suggest the same of Holloway. Pike became a rather ludicrous figure when he started getting involved with mediums and wrote "The Other Side".
I think the discussion needs to move on.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
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.
I think Lietuvos touched on something that is true in my experience: we may experience the Christian life deeply, yet our intellectual understanding lags behind. I'm not sure this is a problem.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
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?
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.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Do you ever wonder whether people who seem to say that actually believe more than they'd like to admit to, even to themselves.
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
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?
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Well, Enoch I'm not sure it matters as long as one is actually engaging with the struggle of belief and faith, as opposed to simply going through the motions. I don't know why many people these days would bother with the latter, as active religious practice becomes increasingly marginalised and in most parts of America there is no disapprobation for non-participation in religion.
This is a little like a hypothetical debate between Athansasius and Luther that I once read. Athanasius goes on about, "In order to be saved it is necessary to believe...", whilst Luther rejoins, "Do you really imagine that the average Christian has any understanding of...?"
In regard to Episcopalians, I suspect that most know what their BCP Eucharistic, Baptismal and Confirmation liturgies say about doctrine and belief. They probably don't engage in a great deal of reflection about those propositions (of course, I could be selling them short here). Rather, they accept these formulations at face value as the teaching of the Church, and they take part in the sacramental acts of the Church. If they experience doubts, in most cases they likely just carry on, provided they are attached to the non-theological aspects of the Church and of sacramental praxis. Those who drift away were probably alienated for reasons other than theology or praxis per se, or were never really identified with the Church.
The flip side of this is that we may have a certain number of no-longer-believing clergy who stay in their cures and sees out of a sense of identity that is wrapped up with the Church, out of aesthetic attachment, and as a result of both those factors out of a need to continue to engage with doctrine and practice to which they no longer hold an orthodox view.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
She doesn´t even believe in the ressurrection.
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?
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.
We are talking about Episcopal Church doctrine here:
Article III - Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.
Anybody can disbelieve this and think up something else and call it "resurrection" can't they? Resuscitation isn't Resurrection, because such people were never truly dead.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
It isn't slander or malicious to call heresy, heresy is it? Granted we have to be careful to get our facts right.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'd point out that whilst the Articles of Religion were adopted by General Convention early in the history of the Episcopal Church, subscription to them was not required of either clergy or laity. This doesn't mean that many of the Articles aren't simply generally non-controversial restatements of normative Christian belief. Fortunately, we've been spared the pernicious effect of some of the more controversial ones being legally binding, although that didn't stop anti-ritualist 19th Century American bishops from getting stroppy with High Church clergy and congregations (they couldn't do a whole lot, however, other than refuse to visit the offending parish and issue usually unenforceable directives to the ritualist clergy).
In reference to the Episcopal Church you should take what is in the liturgies as normative theology. It would be a mistake to think that the Articles have any official standing.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Why do you presume to know more about people's beliefs than they do themselves?
quote:
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.
This suggests to me a failure of imagination about how belief, lack of belief, and experience can intertwine.
[ 17. October 2012, 13:07: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
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.
It's slander to call heresy where heresy is absent.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
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.
...
Not all clerics are as you describe.
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.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Sir Pellinore, you have misunderstood my post. I am not attributing anything to all clerics. I am not saying I am not interested in the input of priests. I am saying that I am not interested in pointing fingers at those who are deemed insufficiently orthodox.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:
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.
...
Not all clerics are as you describe.
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.
Continuing, God willing, if more dioceses don't follow suit behind South Carolina's actions today.
I'm sure that Bishop Schori means well, but she's going to chase away half the church in the pursuit of some "liberal Christian" idol.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I know people are getting tired of the "Spong Spong Spong, Schori Schori Schori" whinging.
The thing is, why do such people get fast tracked right to the very top of the tree in TEC? It was long known that Katherine Jefferts Schori had (possibly) heretical beliefs - so what does The Episcopal Church do about it? They make her their Presiding Bishop!
Spong may be long retired, but on his pay-per-view website, and in his appearances he still, to all intents and purposes represents the Episcopal Church as a retired Bishop in good standing.
So what do outsiders think of first when the subject of The Episcopal Church crops up? "Spong Spong Spong, Schori Schori Schori."
For all it's woes, this is not so much the case in the Anglican Church of England. They are more conservative, take J. T. Robinson for example - after he published "Honest to God", he was never going to rise higher than a suffragan bishop.
We may think of David Jenkins (former Bishop of Durham), but after he retired he was quickly replaced by a much more orthodox bishop.
So when we talk about the Church of England, we don't think of either of these two characters, but the Episcopal Church... "Spong Spong Spong, Schori Schori Schori..." (and all their possible heresies) - and who do they have to blame? Only themselves.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
The sadly frequently repeated lessons of church history should make it obvious how wicked splitting is. We are commanded to love one another, not just to love those who agree with us.
Splitting may become inevitable when the person in the centre throws somebody out. In those circumstances, the moral answerability for that may rest on the person at the centre, not the person evicted.
I have serious reservations whether anyone can say truthfully 'God has led me out of .... (denomination X) ....'.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
... Spong may be long retired, but on his pay-per-view website ...
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about South Carolina. For me, it is another country and a long, long way away.
Here's a brief summary:
Episcopal Drama Rocks SC
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
... Spong may be long retired, but on his pay-per-view website ...
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.
What can't speak can't lie:
Sign up (and pay) for johnshelbyspong.com
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Here's a brief summary:
Episcopal Drama Rocks SC
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
She doesn´t even believe in the resurrection.
Is that actually true? Can anyone confirm this?
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?
I suggest that the Spanish Inquisition be sent with thumb screws and the lash to scoop her up and find out.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Good points and a certainly subject for a new thread on the Diocese of South Carolina (Charleston) situation.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
