Now, if they who hold such views have authority to meet, your wisdom approved in Christ must see that, inasmuch as we do not approve their views, any permission of assembly granted to them is nothing less than a declaration that their view is thought more true than ours. For if they are permitted to teach their view as godly men, and with all confidence to preach their doctrine, it is manifest that the doctrine of the Church has been condemned, as though the truth were on their side. For nature does not admit of two contrary doctrines on the same subject being both true. How[,] then, could your noble and lofty mind submit to suspend your usual courage in regard to the correction of so great an evil? But even though there is no precedent for such a course, let your inimitable perfection in virtue stand up at a crisis like the present, and teach our most pious emperor that no gain will come from his zeal for the Church on other points if he allows such an evil to gain strength from freedom of speech for the subversion of sound faith.
Doesn’t sound like Gregory of Nazianzus was a Hegelian? O dear me, no. Then neither was Jesus, from what I read.
“Go thou now and listen to all the world?” Well, not exactly.
Well found, well said.
What an interesting blog. I also found this just by looking at the earliest entries:
http://liberlocorumcommunium.blogspot.com/2008/07/duffy-on-ratzinger-on-williams-on.html
[blockquote]Duffy on Ratzinger on Williams on tradition
“An insistence on the subversive potential of tradition is valuable in a culture where self-styled ‘traditionalism’ is more often than not invoked in the service of reaction. But there are problems about privileging the notion of unsettlement as much as Williams does.
“Tradition on this account can seem a never ending argumentative seminar, constant upheaval without any point of rest or leverage. Yet if unsettlement is built into the vocabulary of Christian self-understanding, there is also a venerable Christian vocabulary of solidity, dependability, confidence in a faith once revealed to the saints, tradition as a rock. Argument has its limits. The believer is not always to be at the mercy of the scholars, and there must be ways of deciding when at last a particular problem has reached resolution, an argument has come to an end.
“In Rowan Williams the see of Canterbury has its best theologian since St Anselm. As it happens, the new Pope is probably the best theologian to hold the see of Peter since almost as long. Like Archbishop Williams, Benedict XVI is steeped in patristic thought and much given to reflection on the religious value of the past. In his new role, however, Joseph Ratzinger embodies a quite different set of emphases and affirmations, an understanding of tradition precisely as settlement, his office an embodiment of the Church’s confidence that the voice of Christ is, at least occasionally, heard in answers as well as questions. Ratzinger on Williams on the past: now what a seminar that would be.â€
Eamon Duffy, reviewing Why study the past? The quest for the historical Church, by Rowan Williams, Times literary supplement no. 5340 (5 August 2005): 25.[/blockquote]
Again, spot on. Who is Steve Perisho?
“nature does not admit of two contrary doctrines on the same subject being both true. ”
Yes, indeed, but there are limits to our knowing about some things. On the Atonement, for example, Gregory summarized some of the problems with existing theories, then walked back to the least common denominator: “Humanity had to be brought back to life by the humanity of God. We had to be summoned to life by his Son. Let the rest be adored in silence.” Sometimes the point is to realize in charity the places of agreement between apparently contrary doctrines and, yes, *listen* in humility.
I think blessed Gregory N is right with regard to his approach to the Atonement. But apply his principle of two contrary doctrines to the issues now dividing Anglicans, and we have to conclude that the innovations are necessarily wrong, and dangerously so as pertains to our souls’ health.
[blockquote]18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen[/blockquote]
Romans 1:18-25
Perhaps closer to the Archbishop’s views is Gregory’s Oration 27:
I don’t think any Anglican could stomach what St. Gregory would say about (did I read correctly about Williams? The greatest theologian since Anselm? What a slam to Anselm!) them. He wouldn’t sit in the same room with the like. A church that blesses everywhere “sacred” unions and ignores marriage, permits muslipalians in complete communion, a Mormon-baptized woman as a bishop….Quoting a 4th century Father is purely academic. Anglicans are not now and never have been in communion with him and utterly reject his faith. If you want to learn from him and repent, swell idea. Recall, the five orations that caused people to hang the title “Theologian” on him are written to defend Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Find a handful of Anglican bishops priests and/or laymen who would agree with him. Save the “Indaba” gibberish for some pocket lint like Spong.
refreshing to hear common sense…… not the call to compromise ……. even from ‘evangelicals’ who seem to value institutional unity so much that all are encouraged to remain in communion with false teachers…… thankfully, few people come along once revisionist lies are taught, so damage to the population is very limited……. but the church which lets itself be a house divided will not stand…. no surprise, we were told that is how things are……..and still are today
RE: “even from ‘evangelicals’ who seem to value institutional unity so much that all are encouraged to remain in communion with false teachers……”
I’m assuming by Londoner’s comments about folks remaining within organizations led by corrupt leaders that he defines being “in communion” as “remaining in the organization”.
I assume, of course, that Londoner is consistent with his own oft-repeated principle.
So what year, Londoner, did you depart the Anglican Communion and where’d you end up going?
NWlaymen wrote:
[blockquote] “I don’t think any Anglican could stomach what St. Gregory would say about … them.” [/blockquote]
I assure you that most of us can. Katherine Schori no more reflects all Anglicans than Pope Alexander VI Borgia reflected all Roman Catholics.
[blockquote] “Anglicans are not now and never have been in communion with him and utterly reject his faith.” [/blockquote]
That is untrue, on both counts.
[blockquote] “Find a handful of Anglican bishops priests and/or laymen who would agree with him.” [/blockquote]
A very large majority of Anglican bishops, priests and laymen would agree with Pope Gregory’s understanding of the Trinity. I wouldn’t speak for all Anglicans of course, any more than another person could speak for all Roman Catholics, or all Eastern Orthodox, or all Baptists, or whatever