The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, whose diocese encompasses Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties, made the announcement Friday during a diocesan convention in Riverside.
Bruno acted just days after hundreds of conservative Episcopal congregations in North America formed a breakaway church amid a rift that began with the ordination of a gay bishop in New Hampshire five years ago.
Bruno’s declaration is not expected to have a major effect on Episcopal churches in Southern California. Many have been blessing gay unions for years. But he has now made it official.
“The practice has not changed. The policy has. . . . It’s sort of like ‘coming out,’ ” said the Rev. Susan Russell, a lesbian priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Russell also is president of Integrity USA, a group representing the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the Episcopal Church.
The bishops and other clergy who do not refute and renounce this publicly and declare impaired communion with the Dio. of LA are complicit and of one spirit with this.
Rowan?
Time for a follow-up Advent Letter on how wonderfully everyone is complying with the requirements for their invitations to Lambeth 2008.
“The practice has not changed. The policy has. . . . It’s sort of like ‘coming out,’ ” It’s sort of like being honest for a change and acknowledging what you’ve already been doing for a very long time. Such honesty is long overdue — all around. This is where TEC is going — and has been going for a long time. For those orthodox Anglicans pursuing the “inside strategy,” it’s time to be honest too. What is the “strategy” — exactly? Where does strategy end and blind institutional commitment to a human institution take over? Does everyone know where that line is?
Heh.
How is this any different from the past decade — except, oh yes, Bishop Bruno was humiliated on camera as he, er,
lied, uh “clarified” his involvement in same sex blessings back in 2006 in New Orleans: “It does not happen in my diocese with my permission.”http://tinyurl.com/6yoon9
Good to see that he’s out of the closet now — officially and formally, since he was well outed 2.5 years ago. But what a pity that he was too ashamed and weak and prevaricating to be open about it so many years ago.
Peer pressure can be vexing, I’m sure. Glad to see that he’s been brought along. ; > )
Rowan? Yes, that remains the question.
I would predict this is a precusor to GC 2009, which quite fittingly will take place in So. Cal. Of course there are any number of events that also fit this description….
Chris Taylor (#3)
My response to your question on the “inside strategy” is too long for a mere comment. If you desire, please read my [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2008/12/inside-strategy.html]response here[/url].
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, I might add to also that there is calling to be a faithful shepard to those laity who also cannot or will not leave. But you are also under no illusions as to the realities of TEC and you don’t work to undermine those who have had enough.
God bless you in this Advent season.
The increasing brazenness from ECUSA is remarkable. What’s more remarkable is that Rowan Williams won’t say a word about it. Sadly, I think he’s had enough of all of this and just wants it to go away.
A leader, were Williams one, would act, and it wouldn’t have to be public. One good move would be to let Schori know that Bruno either walks his position back immediately or Canterbury recognizes a new North American province.
So +Jon Bruno has come clean at last. There is no longer even the pretense of complying with the Windsor Report’s recommended moratoria. This is actually a good thing. Honesty is always to be praised.
Personally, contrary to some commenters above, I’m less concerned with what ++RW says or doesn’t say, than how the rest of the primates respond. After all, Cantaur is supposedly just “the first among equals.”
I hope this blatant flouting of the official teaching of the Anglican Communion will lead more of the primates to see the need for a whole new province in North America and to support publicly the FCA/CCP/ACNA effort. The “unthinkable,” the breakup of the AC, becomes more thinkable all the time.
The tear in the fabric of the AC just continues to widen and worsen, relentlessly and inexorably, since the promoters of the false “gay is OK” viewpoint are still arrogantly unrepentant, and blindly continue on their merry way, unshamedly espousing the grossly unbiblical theological relativism it represents.
Woe to the false prophets! In this Advent season, it’s sobering for us all to remember that when the Master comes again in power and great glory to usher in his kingdom that will have no end, “he will judge the living and the dead.” I sure wouldn’t want to be in +Bruno’s shoes on that terrible Judgment Day.
This, folks, is precisely why nothing less than a New Reformation will do, no matter how divisive it is. Once parts of the Body of Christ have become infected with gangrene, they must be amputated, for the sake of preserving the life of the rest of the Body.
David Handy+
———
[[i]edited by elves. No name calling of bishops or others please[/i]]
Bp. Bruno, if I recollect, was reported to be the bishop who campaigned rather brazenly for Dr. Schori in the run up to her election as PB. This is the future for TEC teaching on marriage and family morals. Bruno and Schori are working in tandem.
[i] Please do not turn this into a discussion of Bishop Bruno. [/i]
Phil, #7, thanks for your response and I certainly respect your position. However, I certainly hope that you and others pursuing the “inside/witness” strategy will keep yourselves open to the possibility that God is not calling you labor in the vineyard of TEC much longer. There was a point in the early history of the Church when folks were still lining up to face martyrdom for the faith, but there was no longer a need for martyrs, there was a need for builders — the battle against the pagans had largely been won. There was point where leaders of the early Church had to explain to people that changed circumstances required new service to the Lord. This certainly did not negate the powerful witness of the martyrs, but times had changed and the witness of martyrdom was not what was needed. Ironically, there were some who were still committed to martyrdom even though there was a new imperative. There is a new reality in the Anglican world now and I pray that your courage, skills, faith, and energy (and those of all who like you for the moment feel called to pursue the “inside strategy,” which is essentially a witness), will soon feel called to a more hopeful task of building. “For every season under heaven there is a time.” God bless! -Chris
I don’t think #12 applies to my earlier comment, but, as distateful as it may be, I don’t see how this can fail to be, at least in part, a discussion of Mr. Bruno. He is the only person capable of making this position official policy in Los Angeles, and, what’s more, his in-your-face attitude to his opponents sits unavoidably in the center of the room. Good grief, he’s the manager in charge of the L.A. region. If he can’t be a topic of conversation, why post the item in the first place?
Good. Let’s hope this accelerates things. Maybe now they can approve the new province in less than five years.
The news here is that +Jon Bruno (who, anecdotally was initially a +Stacy Sauls booster in the PB election) has ended sacramental apartheid in the Diocese of Los Angeles in authorizing a diocesan liturgy approved for use for same or opposite sex couples. We have moved past our previous status quo where blessings were happening as pastoral acts within congregations (not requiring the bishop’s permission, per his much maligned comments in Salt Lake City) to equality for all the baptized as an official policy of the diocese.
The Diocese of Los Angeles has “come out” as a diocese committed to the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments.
What I guess I wonder is why all those still pointing back to the Windsor Report and bewailing the end of the for-a-season-moratoria on authorized blessings don’t seem to mention the ways the actions of the Chicago Crew are ignoring the same Windsor Report.
As Ian Douglas said in the NYT last week, “The proposal for a new province violates church polity that dates to the council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the church are.â€
The actions of those former Episcopalians who have opted to start a new denomination by their actions last week in Chicago have liberated TEC from continuing to be blackmailed into bigotry by those insisting they’ll leave if we move forward in including all the baptized in all the sacraments.
[i] The elves remind commenters to reply to the post, not individual commenters. [/i]
Susan,
Can you please tell me how you are not redefining morality? You use a wonderful sounding phrase”full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments.” The church has always allowed for ordination of homosexual men and women. It just expects them to be celibate like any other unmarried person. So all the baptized have always been allowed the sacrament of ordination (assuming all other things, that the Church has required are fulfilled).
Likewise all baptized persons are allowed access to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is just that they cannot all be married to the person they want. As a person who is already married, I cannot marry anyone else unless my wife dies or other conditions are met. Likewise, before I was married, I was not free to marry a woman who was already married. The Church has always defined marriage as One Man, One Woman, for life. What you are seeking now is a radical change in that definition. You are seeking to change the definition of marriage to “two (for now) persons who love each other.”
According to the Book of Common Prayer, we bless marriages for four reasons:
1. God ordained marriage in creation and Jesus affirmed this.
2. Jesus adorned marriage by his presence and first miracle at Cana of Galilee.
3. Paul speaks of marriage as signifying the union between Christ and the Church
4. Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people
(BCP p.423)
Can you show me where, in Holy Scripture, any of the above four are true for homosexual unions?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“The news here is that +Jon Bruno . . . has ended sacramental apartheid [giggle] in the Diocese of Los Angeles in authorizing a diocesan liturgy approved for use for same or opposite sex couples.”
The news here is that poor Jon Bruno doesn’t have to look like an eel on a line in front of cameras and reporters at press conferences any more.
RE: “What I guess I wonder is why all those still pointing back to the Windsor Report and bewailing the end of the for-a-season-moratoria on authorized blessings don’t seem to mention the ways the actions of the Chicago Crew are ignoring the same Windsor Report.”
What I guess I wonder is what does the Windsor Report — written for those provinces in the Anglican Communion — have to do with a new Anglican entity that is not recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion?
The only way that the Windsor Report would apply is if the Anglican Communion ever recognized it as a province of same Communion.
The Windsor Report applies to provinces of the Anglican Communion — provinces like TEC.
But then . . . logic was never a strong suit.
In a way, this highlights something I’ve said before about the Windsor Report and it’s “moratoria.” The Report, deliberately I think, attempted to send different messages to the two different sides of the issue. To the reappraisers, it suggested, “We’re not asking you to renounce these practices, only to delay them for a time.” To the reasserters, it hinted, “We’re asking the reappraisers to stop it forever.”
But “moratorium” means “delay,” not a permanent cessation; and people like those voting in the diocese of LA apparently feel that there has been enough delay.
There is no time period on the Windsor moratoria that would satisfy the reasserters other than “forever,” and to that extent the Windsor Report was dishonest; and, I believe, it’s one of the factors that has led to its failure. I imagine that one of the few things that ACNA and DioLA agree on is that the Windsor Report is by now a thoroughly dead letter.
Ross,
The Windsor Report gave a time limit to the “moritorium” on blessing same sex unions. The moritorium was to last until the communion (as a whole) changed its mind. In other words, do not [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2008/12/buying-sports-car.html] buy a car [/url] until the communion determines that we need a new car and that we can affor it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
For the record:
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1587?q=Advent+Letter+2007
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/469?q=Lambeth+2008+invitation+letter
“The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future. I urge you all most strongly to strive during the intervening period to strengthen confidence and understanding between our provinces and not to undermine it.”
Oi vey!
Ross #20,
I’m not sure how L.A. can “feel that there has been enough delay.” That diocese never observed a moratorium in the first place, nor have many (maybe most) others.
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NAB)
Sounds like Diocese of Los Angeles to me. Especially Bruno & Russell et al.
Gosh – the very existence of the Anglican Church violates Nicea. That is a cannard. If TEC throws B033 out the window in GC2009 and/or approves a same sex marriage rite (or makes it optional on a diocese by diocese basis) – the poo will hit the fan. The moderate Primates will have to take sides, +++Williams will seem obviously duped (unless of course he is in fact a very willing confederate), the remaining ACN Bishops in TEC will be humiliated, and the I told you sos will ring loud in clear throughout the non-urban “moderate” Dioceses and Parishes. Its one thing to have a gay Bishop in a small New England state – its another thing to go against the grain of the American public (30 states including Cal have banned gay marriage in reforendums -only benighted judges have voted in the affirmative) With an American based Province in formation provided a real alternative to the AC an to those within TEC who will be appalled – +Bruno, Russell+, Crew, ++Shori are playing with fire (figureatively and, perhaps, literally). One should remember that hardliners do not care about collateral damage – they want a doctrinally pure church – that it only vaguely resembles traditional Christianity is a bonus for them.
#14, comments about +Bruno that are on topic are fine, i.e. comments about his past statements and support of same-sex blessings, etc. But general derogatory comments that don’t address a specific action or statement of his or name-calling is not ok. And that goes true for any subject of discussion. Focus on the person’s arguments and actions, not the individual.
–elfgirl
Re 16:
[blockquote] As Ian Douglas said in the NYT last week, “The proposal for a new province violates church polity that dates to the council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the church are.†[/blockquote]
I know I should be laughing at this patently ridiculous statement. But have to admit that I find it perverse (and frankly more than a little offensive) when heretics and apostates quote the canons of the Orthodox Church in an attempt to justify their actions. But then I am reminded that Satan can quote scripture.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Full inclusion of everything with a body temperature is more accurate. It works for clergy and bishops, so it certainly follows for “Laity”. Although what actually distinguishes laity from clergy in this organization is a moving target. What exactly *isn’t* Episcopalian, outside of a vow of unconditional obedience to KJS?
Chips writes: “Gosh – the very existence of the Anglican Church violates Nicea. That is a cannard. If TEC throws B033 out the window in GC2009 and/or approves a same sex marriage rite (or makes it optional on a diocese by diocese basis) – the poo will hit the fan.”
At one time I would have agreed with this. But at this point in time it clear where TEC is going tnd that it will not change. Yet the ABC and the AC continues to do absolutely nothing. I no longer expect it to do anything and I no longer care why it won’t do anything. As an institution, for what ever reason, by its absolute failure to anything of any substance it is firmly in bed with TEC.
Bruno’s declaration may take what is necessary to bring this issue into open warfare. And, mind you, in my opinion, open warfare is to be preferred to guerilla warfare, presently more or less the case.
His declaration is surely tied to the vote on prop 8 which was incontestably an eye-opener for the California left because prop 8 clearly demonstrated t hat there is a major part of California which is no longer the land of the nuts and the fruits, and that that other minority, so cosseted and pandered to by the liberal world, the black community, is going to vote its conscience and beliefs, not the liberal agenda. This has to have been a nasty knock for the Bruno’s and Russell’s of Cal. ( I wish I could know how the black community and the Hispanic community reacted to the “liberal” crowds and mobs that we have recently seen.)
In any case, California is the best place for this conflict to take place because the rest of the US will be profoundly effected by the result. The sooner the better, say I, because even a victory for the left, whatever it may be, will drive more and more parishes to the CCP. Indeed, in a way, the Cal. left has put itself between an grapefruit and a almond; it can easily lose whatever way the battle turns out. And if the courts won’t overturn prop 8, the resultant soft implosion will be seen wherever pieces of fruitcake can be scattered. Larry
[blockquote]”The rite endorsed by Bruno also allows the blessing of other relationships, such as those between two senior citizens who do not wish to legally marry because they might lose health insurance or Social Security benefits.”[/blockquote]
As TEC ages, it is fascinating to observe its priorities. So now the Dio L. A. regresses to a pre-church morality of marriage: “other relationships.” To me, this very much sounds like a spirit doing an [i]old[/i] thing.
[blockquote][i]And you, of tender years,
Can’t know the fears that your elders grew by.
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die…[/i][/blockquote]
So does this now mean that our elders fear loss of their 1960s free love?
🙄
At least the 10% reduction in ASA/decade means that we can expect that there will be fewer exposed to this teaching.
😉
“The actions of those former Episcopalians who have opted to start a new denomination by their actions last week in Chicago have liberated TEC from continuing to be blackmailed into bigotry by those insisting they’ll leave if we move forward in including all the baptized in all the sacraments”.
For the record I don’t necessarily condone the actions of Common Cause.
But, based on your above statement, Ms. Russell, just what ecclesial authority died and left you and your ilk in charge of REDEFINING the sacrament of marriage? “Inclusion” is no more than your convenient smokescreen.
MBIC, Phil Snyder, thank you for making my same point. I commented before reading all the other comments.
“The news here is that poor Jon Bruno doesn’t have to look like an eel on a line in front of cameras and reporters at press conferences any more”.
And Sarah, you get the award for the line of the day.
[i]( I wish I could know how the black community and the Hispanic community reacted to the “liberal†crowds and mobs that we have recently seen.)[/i]
The liberal protestors know very well what would happen, so they decided to harass Mormons instead.
Hmmm, it looks to me like Bishop Bruno has just enlarged the wedge between TEC and the Global South. And Schori & Company still say they want to remain part of the Anglican Communion…..even if most of the provinces oppose them?
It makes sense that this is happening now. The fighting conservative witness decided not to remain in TEC. Whereas before Bruno might have felt morally obligated to respect the conservatives in the diocese, there’s no real pressure upon him now.
Second, insofar as most gays consider Christians hateful and abusive (of course, I think this is incorrect), Bruno’s work will mitigate and diversify the Christian witness.
Thank God for that.
I’m always amused by the fight to protect marriage or “redefine marriage.” Given the statistics, marriage should be protected from straight people. Including evangelicals. We’ve done a very good job of destroying or trivializing the institution.
Gay people should learn from straight people that its much easier just to live together. The only people who are going to benefit, are divorce lawyers. As one married friend said to me, “Gay people should have marriage. Mine.”
Straight people should begin by confessing their own sins first. It’s too bad that we’re so comfortable being hypocrites about it.
Thanks, Chips #25! Right on. Susan is assuming THE Church. And the Diocese of L.A. is certainly not THE Church nor acting like the reform Church that Anglicanism always claimed to be. And Sarah #19: Well said!
John Wilkins, MIGHT have felt obligated to respect conservatives is the RIGHT way to phrase. But, please, show me when he has done that!?
Re 37 & 25,
Susan R’s decision to quote the canons of the Orthodox Church is all the more breathtaking when one considers that TEC does not even recite the Nicean Creed!!! A growing number of their clergy do not bother to recite any creed at all.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#36,
In order for your conflation to be apt, heterosexuals would have to demand that the Church make divorce a sacramental rite. Though I imagine at some point the Episcopal Church will do just that.
39 – Why, Ad Orientem, I said the Nicene Creed just yesterday when I presided at the 7:30 Eucharist … so to say “TEC does not even recite the Nicene Creed” is … well … one of those pesky facts that people with sole possession of Absolute Truth don’t seem to fuss about getting right.
Susan,
Did you recite the Nicean Creed or the Creed of the Council of Lyons? The latter is what I have seen in Anglican prayer books.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Heh heh.
RE: “Did you recite the Nicean Creed or the Creed of the Council of Lyons? The latter is what I have seen in Anglican prayer books.”
Pesky details, AdOrientem — remember you’re speaking with a TEC-educated priest. ; > )
Sarah,
I am Orthodox and we live for pesky details. Remember I belong to a church where people have broken communion over what day we celebrate Christmas on. 🙂
But seriously, while Trinitarian theology may be a dry subject, it is an important one. There could be a handful of exceptions out there, but I have personal knowledge of only one TEC priest who ordered the filioque blacked out in his parish’s service books and omitted during the recitation of the Creed.
And to the best of my knowledge all Anglican service books (sadly including the conservative’s) still print the Creed of Lyons (though they usually and erroneously refer to it as that of Nicea).
But back to the pesky details thing again. I notice that Susan did not bother to address the fact that an increasing number of TEC clergy omit any creed at all or make it clear during service that recitation of the creed is optional based on personal belief and conscience. In combination with all of the other insanity going on in TEC; this leads me to conclude that it is not a confessionally Christian body. It is essentially a liturgical branch of Unitarianism.
Are there Christian Episcopalians? Yes, of course. But I would argue very strongly that TEC is not a Christian church. I remain open to correction on this point if someone out there can point to a single article of Christian faith which is definitively held by TEC and which clergy and laity are obliged to affirm. Not asking for a catechism here. Just one will do.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
#44 Ad Orientem says:
The BCP supplement “Enriching Our Worship” prints the creed without the filioque, and recommends its use for ecumenical reasons. That makes it an official option in TEC.
Mind you, I suspect you and most Anglican reasserters would find EOW to be an unacceptable wad of reappraising liturgy; but you might be pleased at least over that one detail 🙂
So the Diocese of Los Angeles has “come out” and is now “committed to the full inclusion of all the baptized in all the sacraments.” One assumes that it won’t be long before the other hundred or so dioceses follow suit.
The question is: what next? Does the revision stop here? Now that all the baptized are included in all the sacraments, what can we expect to see in The Episcopal Church in the years to come? Will there be more changes to the liturgy? Will there be more changes in language? Will there be more changes in moral and ethical teaching? Will there be any new behavior-based “communities” who are not yet included that will also come into full inclusion in all the sacraments, provided they’re baptized, of course.
I suppose the main question is, “Are they any limits of any kind?” Or is TEC going to include anything and everything? If so, how would one recognize it or distinguish it from the surrounding culture?
[blockquote]I suppose the main question is, “Are they any limits of any kind?†Or is TEC going to include anything and everything? If so, how would one recognize it or distinguish it from the surrounding culture? [/blockquote]
No.
Yes, eventually.
By its tax exemption.
Let’s remember that Jon Bruno divorced his wife while he was a student at VTS. He was elected a bishop years later, demonstrating a typical TEC attitude toward Scripture. What attitude? Willful and/or actual IGNORANCE. TEC could care less about the Bible or fellow Christians around the world. What matters is being ‘in’ and ‘with it’ — especially in LA-LA Land!
[comment deleted – off topic attack of another commenter]
Ooops, I’ve been corrected: +Jon Bruno is now on his THIRD marriage.
Ad Orientem wrote:
[i]Susan,
Did you recite the Nicean Creed or the Creed of the Council of Lyons? [/i]
AO, what difference does it make if the person reciting them doesn’t believe either one as written and historically interpreted, and has to ‘cross their fingers’ or remain silent during key parts?
Jim Elliott
Florida
#46 has asked one of the central questions left over from the last century and the world of the Boomers. But why has TEC and its generational ilk set out to destroy all the standards? Because to be a liberal now means that the past is a set of shackles which must be destroyed if one is to be emancipated. The Boomer standard has been put in its place: Do your own thing, the lyrics to the only song that the narcissitic know how to sing. For us, by and large, we are looking to CCP to re-establish standards without becoming hide-bound traditionalists, fundmentalists in the worst sense of the word. The past for us is not a thing, but living force that extends unbroken to this very moment, and we look to the CCP’s to tap its vitality that we may integrate the standards of two thousand years ago into the demands of the radical present. We want new insight, not the “New Thang” in th’old spiritual bidness. Larry
I have never figured out how Bishop Bruno and priests who advocate the gay agenda keep their jobs. Their VOWS…VOWS!…that words that they say others have ignored, state that they themselves will uphold the doctrine of this Church.
The doctrine on marriage has not changed. The BCP defines that doctrine, not Jon Bruno or Integrity. But…they keep getting passes on their own vows and are not held to account. They then have the audacity and the mendacity to holler about others and their vow-keeping. GC ’09 is going to be one hell-of-a mess considering who will be the loud, out front leaders. Look for mass nausea when these good vow-keepers desecrate the Church come July.
I’m feeling a little confused: what is the connection between marriage and the creeds? Any marriage.
When did we start including the creed in the liturgy, anyway?
The RC church uses the “filioque clause” and calls it Nicean – or Niceno-constantinopolitan creed. It’s a trick question, finally. Although it is far more important than gay sex.
However, John, I have doubts that Jesus himself was much of a Christian. This would, however, be a point made by German protestant scholars, skeptical about scripture’s catholic additions to Jesus’ presence. Not that the orthodox love scripture…
Finally, I suspect that the question is irrelevant. There are so many things to buy and videos to watch. Who cares about the filioque clause?
Re # 54
John W.
[blockquote] The RC church uses the “filioque clause†and calls it Nicean – or Niceno-constantinopolitan creed. [/blockquote]
This is true but irrelevant since the Creed recited by the Roman Church is most obviously NOT the Nicean Creed. They of course wish to pretend that they are reciting the same creed as the Fathers because to admit otherwise is to concede that they have changed something which can not be altered without incurring anathema.
ICXC NIKA
John
Re 45
Ross,
[blockquote] The BCP supplement “Enriching Our Worship†prints the creed without the filioque, and recommends its use for ecumenical reasons. That makes it an official option in TEC.
Mind you, I suspect you and most Anglican reasserters would find EOW to be an unacceptable wad of reappraising liturgy; but you might be pleased at least over that one detail[/blockquote]
So you are are saying that you have two different creeds available for use. One apparently is for use when others are around. But which one do you believe?
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Re my 53
That should be in response to Ross’s 52. Apologies for the typo. It’s been a long day.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Re # 49
Jim,
[blockquote] AO, what difference does it make if the person reciting them doesn’t believe either one as written and historically interpreted, and has to ‘cross their fingers’ or remain silent during key parts? [/blockquote]
None at all of course. You have hit the nail on the head and reinforced the point I attempted to make in my 44.
ICXC NIKA
John
RE: “I’m feeling a little confused . . . ”
Sorry, John — here’s Ad Orientem’s helpful reason for bringing up the creeds — sorry that you missed it just above: “Susan R’s decision to quote the canons of the Orthodox Church is all the more breathtaking when one considers that TEC does not even recite the Nicean Creed!!! A growing number of their clergy do not bother to recite any creed at all.”
RE: “However, John, I have doubts that Jesus himself was much of a Christian.”
We know you do, John.