John 11:35

Christopher, I see this current issue of “Episcopal Life Online” is even – well, I was going to say “better”, but I’m really not sure what word to use in this case.

We have (1) someone who thinks the Eucharist is a cannibal sacrifice (“literally or representationally…devouring the body tissues of Jesus and drinking his blood”)?(2) corrected by someone else who uses St. Thomas Aquinas to buttress his contention that the Real Presence is merely a spiritual blessing – the irony being that the cannibal lady is closer to the thought of St. Thomas (yep, it’s really the flesh and blood of Our Lord) than the gentleman correcting her; followed by (3) a Canadian Anglican who thinks those Anglicans/Episcopalians who want closer union with Rome are hopeless cases (“I wonder how any self-respecting Episcopalian/Anglican would want to go back to Rome with its all-male priesthood and its hypocrisy etc.”) and a respectable publication like “Episcopal Life” shouldn’t be carrying ads from the likes of the (spit!) Anglican Use Society, while at the same time merrily admitting he has no qualms whatsofreakin’ever about receiving communion in Catholic churches when “travelling in Catholic countries” (I’m guessing he means in Europe, but who knows what counts as “a Catholic country” to this guy?) because there are no Anglican churches around (er – so what are the Convocation of American Churches in Europe and the Church of England – Diocese in Europe, then? chopped liver?), even though he has been questioned by Roman Catholics does he “believe in the pope and the “real presence” as criteria to receive Communion in the Church of Rome.”

Well, I certainly hope he believes in the Pope – I mean, I’ve seen the guy on TV and there are even those who say they’ve met him in person.

By comparison, wanting to dump the Creeds and trotting out the Gnostic gospels is small beer.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this stage. I would say “Thank God they’re your lot not ours”, except I bet we could throw a stone and hit some of our lot who think along similar lines. Oy, vey!

I didn’t get enough malice out of Judy’s nonsense to call it “anti-Catholic”. It was just ignorant.

But ah, it’s true, the Creeds don’t mention much about the life and ministry of Jesus, I suppose since that material was pretty well covered in the four canonical gospels. It’s an understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation that was needed. Obviously, it’s still needed, but never mind that.

But you know, you could add to the Creed’s couldn’t you? The last pope noticed that the Rosary skipped over the life and ministry of Jesus, so instead of dumping the Joyful, Sorrowful, or Glorious Mysteries, he added 5 “Luminous Mysteries”:

The Baptism of the Lord
The Wedding at Cana
The Preaching of the Kingdom (the “Sermon on the Mount”)
The Transfiguraton
The Institution of the Eucharist

Now, one wonders if that’s what these folks want? Probably not. I suspect they just want to indulge their 60s “Aren’t we incredibly cool” narcissism and haven’t thought too deeply about they such a creed would actually say.

Oh, my, I’m glad I checked. This flake really does have something in mind, and it’s from a gnostic gospel:

“The seed of true humanity is within you. Follow it!” Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) 4:5.

Oh…my….

Why do these people even want to claim to be Christian? I can only surmise they think it gives them some kind of credence (gag on that, Rev. JB Buthcer!) in advancing their left-wing political agenda.

Every now and then you read something so breathtakingly ignorant it just stops you cold. How do you respond to such stupidity? To start with, you don’t associate with the stupid person who says it. If you have inadvertently done so, you disassociate as quickly as possible. The Catholics have a term “Invincible Ignorance”. This person’s statements may just provide the most useful example for educational purposes.

Seriously, what can you do with beliefs like this from Christian ministers? It’s just bizarre.

The creeds have one purpose and one only; to separate Christian and Non-Christian. A Christian is anyone who can assent to the creeds as they are understood by the Church. A non-Christian is anyone who cannot assent, or who must tergiversate, redefine, re-interpret or otherwise lie in order to appear to assent.

The creeds demand a minimal understanding of who Christ is and why he came. “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.” They are not meant to illume, the are meant to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just like Arius or Nestorius, you can wind up a
bishop without the Faith, and it appears the many have. The creeds are a tool to help prevent that. They don’t always work, but they sure can help make the situation clear.

Of course these people want to dump the creeds. They want to continue to play Christian, even though they don’t meet the minimum qualifications. They got their way with the physical requirements for firefighters and policemen, why not the theological requirements for Christians?

The first two items pretty much destroy the argument that the essential faith is not in dispute in TEC. It is, in every issue of Episcopal Life.

They even published a letter, the third one you cite, from a guy who doesn’t understand the polity and canons of TEC. Now that’s open-minded! Or, empty-minded.

I suppose Rev. John Beverly has nailed the source of a lot of misunderstanding. In Christianity it is the Birth and Death and Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus that is MOST important–not his Teachings(?) that differentiate Him from other major religions. Jesus was GOD incarnate in human form. How can any Christian minister deny this, and still claim any basis for advocating His Teachings?

“The Episcopal Organization. Making up Christianity as we go since 1979″

Surely “1979″ is a mistake for “1976″ or “1973″ (WO) or “1967″ (the Pike fiasco).

Four parishes just joined the Southern Cone Diocese of Pittsburgh. Two more parishes just joined the orthodox Canadian Anglican Network. That’s six parishes just this week and it’s not going to stop.

Go to Shelter in the Storm to see the consequences of TEC abuses and apostasies in the USA since the 60s.

Of course there is no absolutely safe secure church or Christian individual. Only those groups and individuals that are submitted, transparent, truthful and accountable, in the fear of God and wholehearted love of God (Ephesians 5:21) are reasonably safe. They are safe only for as long as they are humble, transparent and accountable. When pride and love of power or money gain predominance in the human heart, Jesus is no longer Lord and that person or group becomes dangerous and destructive to it/him/her self and to the Kingdom of God.

The creeds were written because of such as these. And as anyone who ever lived in Arizona (or ever listened to late night talk radio) can tell you, the very name of “Sedona” should raise red flags.

Jesus’ summary of the law to love God and love your neighbor is mentioned several times in Scripture, the Old and New Testaments. Why isn’t that our creed, easily understood and a guide for living?

Ah, ‘cause commandments are not credo. One is God telling us how to live; the other is us stating what we believe about God.

James G

“The creed, instituted by Roman decree more than three centuries after the Resurrection, leaves out both entirely. The Council of Nicea’s purpose was to institutionalize Roman power and authority.” and “Women also have sensed the irony of referring to the Holy Spirit as ‘he’ when it is a feminine word in both Hebrew and Greek and would best be translated as ‘she.’” – I detect the presence of a “womynpriest” here.

Llano, Yes, Sedona probably has a lot in common with Santa Fe, where another commenter is from and they both probably have a lot in common with the “People’s Republic of Cambridge” where there’re a lot of Argyle Socks & Birkenstocks.

“The heart of the gospel is missing. The creeds are defective and need to be taken out of service.”

Well, if you’re going to cut loose the moorings of traditional christianity, you might as well cut them all.

This would be one more person for St. Nicholas to throw a punch at!

Wow. I wonder if TEO will declare Obama as Messiah and Third Adam the way the “German Christian Movement” with its similar beliefs did Hitler in National Socialist Germany?

“The Council of Nicea’s purpose was to institutionalize Roman power and authority.”

And what do our Orthodox brethren think of this interpretation?

Any of those dates would work, Prof. And it’s always dangerous to date the Episcopal apostasy to any one particular year or event. But I grabbed ’79 because it seemed to me that the introduction of TEO’s current “prayer book” finally came out and said what had just been suggested before.

“And what do our Orthodox brethren think of this interpretation?”

Heh. Why bother? Trying to Explain the real meaning of Nicea I and II to Rev. Butcher would be like trying to explain alternate parking to a grape.

Let’s not be uncharitable to fruit, Pilgrim. I’d much rather explain alternate parking to a grape; a grape wouldn’t talk back.

Butcher’s and Massey’s letters provide perfect proof that Gnosticism is alive and well and thriving in TEO. Even the PB indulges in such ideas when she insists that we are all filled with the divine spark.

This has been a theme in TEO for a long time. Frank Griswold excelled in pressing such language into use.

But the thing to note is that the Church Catholic has always had to contend with heresy both within and without. That is why bishops are called upon to “drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word…” Unfortunately, Episcopal bishops have been most reluctant to name heresy for what it is: dangerous teaching which lead people away from God. This cowardice began in earnest with the Pike fiasco, as Dr. Tighe has pointed out. But I suspect it has been present for longer than that.

But I do agree with you, Chris, that the 1979 date just puts an official date on it.

The Reformed Pastor has aptly dissected Shori’s post-Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention emission:

http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/

Allen, Don’t you mean the divine ‘spork’?

[...] FASCISTIC Lefty ‘Christian’ Jefforts-Schori, Fisked; “The Episcopal Organization. Making up Christianity as we go since 1979” …. [...]

Ken, it’s generally a bad idea to add to the Creeds–even when right (as most everyone now agrees the filioque is in some sense), it causes a whole lot of problems.

And why do these people have to keep misrepresenting my beloved Angelic Doctor in support of heresy? Christ’s presence in the Eucharist may not be local–that is, he is not to be thought of as compressed within the Host or moved around by its motion–but it is most certainly substantial, and since the Body and Blood are physical substances, it is therefore a physical presence.

‘Women also have sensed the irony of referring to the Holy Spirit as “he” when it is a feminine word in both Hebrew and Greek and would best be translated as “she.” ‘ (my emphasis)

Huh? The Holy Spirit in Greek is hagion pneuma, which is neuter, not feminine. So in the three relevant ancient languages, the Holy Spirit can be masculine {Latin spiritus), feminine (Hebrew ruach), or neuter (Greek pneuma). Which rather makes a nonsense of any attempt to draw partisan conclusions from the grammatical gender of the linguistic antecedents.

(Besides, only a speaker of a language which lacks grammatical gender – and a fairly ill-informed one at that – would make the silly mistake of equating it with biological sex. Does JBB really imagine, for example, that a neuter word like “Mädchen” (German “maiden”) is sexless and therefore correctly rendered with the pronoun “it”?)

Agreed that adding to the Creeds is generally a bad idea, unless you are an Ecumenical Council. However, I don’t think our Orthodox friends are yet in agreement that the filioque is right.

I think that you’re going to have to start calling this “Big Loaf O’Goofy.”

For goodness’ sake, Chris, you need to check your sources. “Fly, you fools!” is from *Second* Tolkien, not First Tolkien. The relevant quote from First Tolkien would be “Fifteen birds in five fir trees, Their feathers were fanned by a fiery breeze.” I expect better from you than this.

Not gonna argue theology with you but I just now checked my leather-bound 50th anniversary edition of the scriptures and “Fly, you fools!” is in First Tolkien. You must have some Elvish apocrypha in your edition or something.

This letter exactly illustrates why we say the creed every service. And the request to remove the creed from the service is simply one more in a long line of definitive indications that the religion being practised is no longer Christian.

“…it’s generally a bad idea to add to the Creeds–even when right (as most everyone now agrees the filioque is in some sense…”

I’m thinking that “most everyone” does not include about 225 million Orthodox.

Note the qualifier ‘in some sense’. I was under the impression that most Orthodox theologians think that there is some sense in which the Spirit proceeds from the Son, even if they’d limit it to the temporal missions.

Actually, Christopher, “Fly, you fools” comes from either Second or Third Tolkien 5, depending on whether when considers “There and Back Again” to be First Tolkien or a separate work.

Publishers, unfortunately, have confused the matter by compiling Second and Third, Fourth and Fifth, and Sixth, Seventh and Writings into three volumes.

I admit to a Protestant take on this, M. L. Sola Tolkienia, if you will. But the quote is there, no matter where in the Canon your tradition happens to put it.