A far better question for the PB is whether she thinks God is a fool and a moron for having sacrificed His only son, if all "vehicles to the divine," as she puts it, are one and the same.
The piece was rather short and there was very little content. I'm surprised that it brings much interest or controversy, particularly among those who belong to other churches.
Let's not actively pretend, either. You are not Anglicans. You have reinvented the term to suit your congregationalist, Puritanic and fundamentalist leanings.
I'm not calling you names, I'm describing, accurately, your theology and philosophy.
I certainly agree that what one Anglican primate does affects the others. Akinola, Orombi and the others have certainly wreaked enough destruction on the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Schori is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
She is not a Primate. That is a title she has, without constitutional authority, awarded to herself. Of course, with KJS, there are no rules except those she utters.
Ralph - does she refer to herself as "Primate"? I thought the previous comment, to which you seem to be responding, was referring to Bishops Akinola and Orombi as "primates."
The Presiding Bishop attends primates meetings. I was using the term as shorthand.
And when one considers the issue of clergy, and bishops, ignoring rules, what is the self-transfer of priests to CANA, AMiA, Uganda, etc.? Talk about the lack of constitutional and canonical authority. Wasn't John Guernsey elected or appointed a bishop of Uganda after being deposed and, therefore, becoming a lay person? Lay people can be elected bishop, I know. But why was this never discussed.
Bash the Episcopal Church for violating its canons - but the hundred plus priests who "transfer" is an act as arrogant as any of which you complain.
About a year back it was popular in loyalist blogs to assume that bishops that had been inhibited by the Presiding Bishop lost their "episcopal gifts" and could no longer be considered as bishops.
Even in TEC loyalist circles, this opinion has changed, as it was never particularly well-grounded in the first place, IMHO. This became most evident when +KJS inhibited a bishop from the Church of England. Then the TEC loyalist word was: "these inhibitions in no way remove the episcopal gifts from these bishops; they simply strike them off the list of active bishops within TEC" (or something to that effect).
Fundamentalism regarding ecclesiology is also not particularly "Anglican." One of TEC's problems is it encourages fundamentalism regarding ecclesiology amongst its adherents, while teaching things about Christ which aren't Trinitarian. It inculcates a faith in TEC itself, where Jesus is a sort of accoutrement belonging to the general faith in TEC.
We Anglicans are no longer Trinitarian Christians in practice. And it's sort of ridiculous to be quibbling about what kind of church government we should have, when we are so clueless as to what should be at the center of our faith (unless, as it seems increasingly in TEC's case, that it's church polity itself which is what is most sacred to us).
I'd say: save yourself undue trauma, tears, and spiritual wounding, and get yourself out of these Anglican wars. They are causing a great deal of damage, including spiritual damage to those who engage in them. Find a good church that isn't Anglican in any sense. They tend to be rather faithfully Trinitarian when they aren't Anglican. Jesus is much, much more important than your idea of how a church governing body should be set up. And I tell you this being an Anglican myself.
14 comments:
Her every motion or utterance brings small spasms of disgust.
A far better question for the PB is whether she thinks God is a fool and a moron for having sacrificed His only son, if all "vehicles to the divine," as she puts it, are one and the same.
Clown mitre, clown collar and killer clown theology.
People get the kind of leaders they deserve.
The piece was rather short and there was very little content. I'm surprised that it brings much interest or controversy, particularly among those who belong to other churches.
Scout
Come now, let's not passively pretend. We are all Anglicans and what one Anglican provincial leader says and does, affects the whole.
bb
Let's not actively pretend, either. You are not Anglicans. You have reinvented the term to suit your congregationalist, Puritanic and fundamentalist leanings.
I'm not calling you names, I'm describing, accurately, your theology and philosophy.
I certainly agree that what one Anglican primate does affects the others. Akinola, Orombi and the others have certainly wreaked enough destruction on the Episcopal Church.
For shame.
-Jeterius
Bishop Schori is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
She is not a Primate. That is a title she has, without constitutional authority, awarded to herself. Of course, with KJS, there are no rules except those she utters.
RalphM
Ralph - does she refer to herself as "Primate"? I thought the previous comment, to which you seem to be responding, was referring to Bishops Akinola and Orombi as "primates."
Scout
The Presiding Bishop attends primates meetings. I was using the term as shorthand.
And when one considers the issue of clergy, and bishops, ignoring rules, what is the self-transfer of priests to CANA, AMiA, Uganda, etc.? Talk about the lack of constitutional and canonical authority. Wasn't John Guernsey elected or appointed a bishop of Uganda after being deposed and, therefore, becoming a lay person? Lay people can be elected bishop, I know. But why was this never discussed.
Bash the Episcopal Church for violating its canons - but the hundred plus priests who "transfer" is an act as arrogant as any of which you complain.
-Jeterius
Jeterius,
Welcome to the Anglican controversies.
About a year back it was popular in loyalist blogs to assume that bishops that had been inhibited by the Presiding Bishop lost their "episcopal gifts" and could no longer be considered as bishops.
Even in TEC loyalist circles, this opinion has changed, as it was never particularly well-grounded in the first place, IMHO. This became most evident when +KJS inhibited a bishop from the Church of England. Then the TEC loyalist word was: "these inhibitions in no way remove the episcopal gifts from these bishops; they simply strike them off the list of active bishops within TEC" (or something to that effect).
Fundamentalism regarding ecclesiology is also not particularly "Anglican." One of TEC's problems is it encourages fundamentalism regarding ecclesiology amongst its adherents, while teaching things about Christ which aren't Trinitarian. It inculcates a faith in TEC itself, where Jesus is a sort of accoutrement belonging to the general faith in TEC.
We Anglicans are no longer Trinitarian Christians in practice. And it's sort of ridiculous to be quibbling about what kind of church government we should have, when we are so clueless as to what should be at the center of our faith (unless, as it seems increasingly in TEC's case, that it's church polity itself which is what is most sacred to us).
I'd say: save yourself undue trauma, tears, and spiritual wounding, and get yourself out of these Anglican wars. They are causing a great deal of damage, including spiritual damage to those who engage in them. Find a good church that isn't Anglican in any sense. They tend to be rather faithfully Trinitarian when they aren't Anglican. Jesus is much, much more important than your idea of how a church governing body should be set up. And I tell you this being an Anglican myself.
"We Anglicans are no longer Trinitarian Christians in practice."
A somewhat broad statement, Wilf. Perhaps you could narrow the scope of your assertion and explain what you mean?
RalphM
Scout,
Yes, assuming she does not object to being described as primate.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop.htm
RalphM
Ralph.
The PB did not award herself the title of Primate. The use of Primate dates back to at least her predecessor.
Post a Comment