Uncle Dino, ENS is an Episcopal News Service, and since neither the diocese of Pittsburgh nor +Bob Doncan are in the Episcopal church(sic) it would be pointless reporting what they think.
“I believe that the vast majority of Episcopalians and Anglicans will be intensely grieved by the actions of individuals who thought it necessary to remove them from The Episcopal Church.” —KJS
Crocodile tears.
“I have repeatedly reassured Episcopalians that there is abundant room for dissent within this Church.”
Just as the crocodile pen always has abundant room for lambs and geese. Bring ’em on!
“Loyal opposition is a long and honored tradition within Anglicanism.”
Well, orthodox Anglicans in ECUSA used to have a bad habit of dhimmitude.
“Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.”
Absolutely! Heresy does not trouble ECUSA’s leaders. They therefore regard most anything as worse than heresy: littering, making insensitive remarks, and using the wrong sort of lightbulb.
[blockquote]Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.[/blockquote]
Irenaeus (#3), in calling Pittsburgh’s alliance with the Southern Cone a “schism”, she doesn’t even get that right, according to [url=http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter6-2.html]Cardinal Newman[/url] (he of the [url=http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/10/the-tomb-was-em.html]recently-discovered-to-have-vanished bones[/url]):
[blockquote]If unity lies in the Apostolical succession, an act of schism is from the nature of the case impossible; for as no one can reverse his parentage, so no Church can undo the fact that its clergy have come by lineal descent from the Apostles. Either there is no such sin as schism, or unity does not lie in the Episcopal form or in the Episcopal ordination. And this is felt by the controversialists of this day; who in consequence are obliged to invent a sin, and to consider, not division of Church from Church, but interference of Church with Church to be the sin of schism, as if local dioceses and bishops with restraint were more than ecclesiastical arrangements and by-laws of the Church, however sacred, while schism is a sin against her essence. Thus they strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Division is the schism, if schism there be, not interference. If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin in interference.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]The [b]mission of God[/b], in which The Episcopal Church participates, [b]is to love God[/b] and to love our neighbors as ourselves.[/blockquote]
God has a “mission”? Sent (the meaning of “mission”) to God by Whom?
And that “mission” (sent by Whomever) to God is: “to love God”???
Sure sounds like twentieth-century psychobabble to me. It’s [b]not[/b] worthy of the nominal leader of a Christian church—but then, what else do we find as new here?
There is no room for even debate in TEC, let along space for dissent…who does squid woman think she is kidding…TEC is a mean spirited back biting organization that will literally assassinate you if you don’t do as told and support by your silent presence the party cultural line…grrrrrrrr
Awww, such propaganda! But it is what we have come to expect from the EC’s leadership. This is not Schism as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has not left the catholic Church/Anglican Communion. Rather, for the sake of the faith delivered to the Apostles, they have left to maintain their Christian Faith. Of course, the spin goes on….but it is only the unenlightened who are not keeping up with events who will be confused by the PB’s words.
Again, she is blinking at reality…but what else is new?
[blockquote]Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.[/blockquote]
That undoubtedly explains why Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were burned at the stake. Think, if they had prefered heresy to schism they could have lived to a ripe old age.
” Schism is not, having frequently been seen as a more egregious error than charges of heresy.” I was watching a movie when these words came back into my conscious mind. I wanted to comment while the movie is on “pause” and see that others are as confounded as me. Schism is not related to error. Heresy is related to error. I believe the the PB thinks there is room for heresy in TEC as part of the ongoing indaba. How much that has been attributed to the PB is actually written by her? So many questions, well, back to the movie.
Schori says, “The mission of God, in which The Episcopal Church participates, is to love God….”.
The problem with this idea is that not every action taken by us with the best of intentions is the love of God. Eve, for one, thought well of the eating of the fruit in the garden but such an act was not love toward her Creator but was rebellion and hatred of her Creator.
God had to tell Moses how to love God and our fellow man because such was beyond our existential comprehension. Without Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Holy Scriptures, we are no better of than Eve at finding our own way toward loving actions. And since Schori rejects Scriptures as an authority in that search, her own search is as vain (and nearly as destructive) as Eve’s was.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if TEC actually adopted a Christian attitude toward orthdox and let parishes and dioceses depart. Bet we’d see a much larger flood.
And ENS could only get quotes from Mrs. Schori for its report???
Uncle Dino, ENS is an Episcopal News Service, and since neither the diocese of Pittsburgh nor +Bob Doncan are in the Episcopal church(sic) it would be pointless reporting what they think.
“I believe that the vast majority of Episcopalians and Anglicans will be intensely grieved by the actions of individuals who thought it necessary to remove them from The Episcopal Church.” —KJS
Crocodile tears.
“I have repeatedly reassured Episcopalians that there is abundant room for dissent within this Church.”
Just as the crocodile pen always has abundant room for lambs and geese. Bring ’em on!
“Loyal opposition is a long and honored tradition within Anglicanism.”
Well, orthodox Anglicans in ECUSA used to have a bad habit of dhimmitude.
“Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.”
Absolutely! Heresy does not trouble ECUSA’s leaders. They therefore regard most anything as worse than heresy: littering, making insensitive remarks, and using the wrong sort of lightbulb.
“Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.â€
By whom and when? Please produce specific examples — and odds are that then “frequently” will be shown up for the imposture that it is.
[blockquote]Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.[/blockquote]
Irenaeus (#3), in calling Pittsburgh’s alliance with the Southern Cone a “schism”, she doesn’t even get that right, according to [url=http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter6-2.html]Cardinal Newman[/url] (he of the [url=http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/10/the-tomb-was-em.html]recently-discovered-to-have-vanished bones[/url]):
[blockquote]If unity lies in the Apostolical succession, an act of schism is from the nature of the case impossible; for as no one can reverse his parentage, so no Church can undo the fact that its clergy have come by lineal descent from the Apostles. Either there is no such sin as schism, or unity does not lie in the Episcopal form or in the Episcopal ordination. And this is felt by the controversialists of this day; who in consequence are obliged to invent a sin, and to consider, not division of Church from Church, but interference of Church with Church to be the sin of schism, as if local dioceses and bishops with restraint were more than ecclesiastical arrangements and by-laws of the Church, however sacred, while schism is a sin against her essence. Thus they strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Division is the schism, if schism there be, not interference. If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin in interference.[/blockquote]
Also, what kind of twisted theology is this?
[blockquote]The [b]mission of God[/b], in which The Episcopal Church participates, [b]is to love God[/b] and to love our neighbors as ourselves.[/blockquote]
God has a “mission”? Sent (the meaning of “mission”) to God by Whom?
And that “mission” (sent by Whomever) to God is: “to love God”???
Sure sounds like twentieth-century psychobabble to me. It’s [b]not[/b] worthy of the nominal leader of a Christian church—but then, what else do we find as new here?
There is no room for even debate in TEC, let along space for dissent…who does squid woman think she is kidding…TEC is a mean spirited back biting organization that will literally assassinate you if you don’t do as told and support by your silent presence the party cultural line…grrrrrrrr
Awww, such propaganda! But it is what we have come to expect from the EC’s leadership. This is not Schism as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has not left the catholic Church/Anglican Communion. Rather, for the sake of the faith delivered to the Apostles, they have left to maintain their Christian Faith. Of course, the spin goes on….but it is only the unenlightened who are not keeping up with events who will be confused by the PB’s words.
Again, she is blinking at reality…but what else is new?
#5 Chancellor
“according to Cardinal Newman (he of the recently-discovered-to-have-vanished bones)”
Must be a miracle!
[blockquote]Schism [has] frequently been seen as a more egregious error than heresy.[/blockquote]
That undoubtedly explains why Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were burned at the stake. Think, if they had prefered heresy to schism they could have lived to a ripe old age.
What schism? If only individuals are leaving The Episcopal Church, how can there be anything as ecclesial as a schism?
Doesn’t the claim of a schism mean that a diocese has actually left?
Pffah. Dr Jefferts-Shori et al., get your story straight. Is this schism, or is this a departure of mere individuals?
” Schism is not, having frequently been seen as a more egregious error than charges of heresy.” I was watching a movie when these words came back into my conscious mind. I wanted to comment while the movie is on “pause” and see that others are as confounded as me. Schism is not related to error. Heresy is related to error. I believe the the PB thinks there is room for heresy in TEC as part of the ongoing indaba. How much that has been attributed to the PB is actually written by her? So many questions, well, back to the movie.
Schori says, “The mission of God, in which The Episcopal Church participates, is to love God….”.
The problem with this idea is that not every action taken by us with the best of intentions is the love of God. Eve, for one, thought well of the eating of the fruit in the garden but such an act was not love toward her Creator but was rebellion and hatred of her Creator.
God had to tell Moses how to love God and our fellow man because such was beyond our existential comprehension. Without Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Holy Scriptures, we are no better of than Eve at finding our own way toward loving actions. And since Schori rejects Scriptures as an authority in that search, her own search is as vain (and nearly as destructive) as Eve’s was.
Don
Chancellor, thanks for the link. Fascinating. Newman rests entirely with the Lord and in no earthly place.
Irenaeus precisely captured the duplicity in TEC.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if TEC actually adopted a Christian attitude toward orthdox and let parishes and dioceses depart. Bet we’d see a much larger flood.
Bill,
That’s exactly WHY it won’t happen that way.
Peace
Jim E. <><