Episcopal church's new dawn
Fred Goodwin, CMA
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-02-04-jefferts-schori-
cover_x.htm>
http://tinyurl.com/2wyqc7
Posted 2/4/2007 4:36 PM ET
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
NEW YORK - Every time Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts
Schori dons her personalized vestments, there's a vision of sunrise.
Colors of the "new dawn," cited so often by the prophet Isaiah, are
sewn into her personalized mantle and bishop's hat - an orange glow
rises from a green hem to a dawn-blue band below purple heavens.
Jefferts Schori herself stands for a new day in her church:
· The first female presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the U.S.
branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
· The first and only female primate, head of one of the 38 national
and regional churches, in the world's largest non-Catholic Christian
denomination.
· The leader who faces a costly fracture among the faithful, a crack
radiating across the Anglican world.
Since her election in June and installation in November, a tiny but
influential number of churches from Virginia to California - "one-half
of 1% of the 7,200 congregations," she says - have spurned her
leadership and the liberal direction of the Episcopal Church to align
with Southern Hemisphere traditionalists.
The long-simmering tensions between those who adhere to a strict
interpretation of the Bible and those who read it less literally came
to a boil in 2003. That's when the church's governing body approved
the election of the church's first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene
Robinson of New Hampshire.
Jefferts Schori has been excoriated by conservatives for her
theological views. Some primates say they won't sit in the same room
with her at her first meeting of the primates in Tanzania next week.
Yet, despite "white-hot animosity thrown at her, she's unflappable,"
New York Bishop Mark Sisk says.
Confronted with seemingly intractable conflicts, Jefferts Schori
smiles like someone well versed in Matthew 6:25's refrain: "Be not
anxious." The world is all of God, she says, so go forward.
"I'm no Pollyanna. I just try to look at the world with the
expectation that I will find signs of God. The burning bush is an
invitation, if we are willing to engage it."
She's at ease answering questions, speaking in a low voice, slowly and
precisely. She zeros in to make a point by leaning forward to fix her
intent gaze on a visitor.
She has had little time to personalize her functional New York office
with its view of the United Nations. But one thing she treasures rests
on her desk: a slice of shale embedded with an ammonite, a fossil
ancestor of the chambered nautilus.
It is circular, complex, ruggedly beautiful - and has been extinct for
65 million years. It was a gift from her parents 30 years ago, as she
commenced her first career in biological oceanography.
Introverted but not afraid
Jefferts Schori is as conversant on squids as on Scripture. She's also
an instrument-rated pilot with a Cessna 172 stashed in Nevada, where
she was bishop before taking national office. Lean and fit at 52, she
spent Christmas Day climbing a snowy peak near Death Valley.
For all her adventurous spirit, scientific curiosity and pastoral
experience since becoming a priest in 1994, she calls herself an
introvert in her new book, A Wing and a Prayer. Yet she says that
"fear should not block faithfulness."
Or optimism. To hear her talk, the future of her denomination is
brighter every day, with many "healthy, vital churches."
What of breakaway churches?
She's sad to see them go, but not so sad that she won't fight for
their properties. "The institution cannot give away its birthright and
the gifts that belong to future generations. Our desire to reconcile
continues, but if (the seceding churches) would prefer to be part of
another tradition, then they are welcome to go. They just can't take
what doesn't belong to them," she says, leaning forward.
"The church's laws are broad but they are there, and beyond these
lines you cannot go. Crossing boundaries has consequences."
Condemnations from Global South primates?
Jefferts Schori steers the discussion to the positive, focusing on the
mission she shares with many of the African primates to address the
terrible plagues of war, poverty, disease and hunger.
"We can work on these together. Human need is so overwhelming that it
seems incredibly sinful to spend time" on church politics.
What she omits: The Anglican Church in Tanzania recently declared
itself in "severely impaired communion" with the Episcopal Church. The
Archbishop of Uganda said he wouldn't meet with her because of her
stance on biblical faith and morality.
The head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan
Williams, who invited Jefferts Schori to Tanzania, also invited some
dissident U.S. conservative leaders. But the Anglican Archbishop of
Southern Africa has been quoted saying that to boycott a legitimately
elected primate while "Africa is on fire ... is like fiddling while Rome
burns" and "goes against God's fundamental call for unity and
reconciliation."
Jefferts Schori is unruffled.
"It's not about me. This is not a table that belongs to any one
province. It's God's table," she says,
What about her denomination's declining numbers?
Statistics don't scare her, she says. Yes, membership is down from 3.2
million in 1960 to 2.2 million today, a downward trend similar to all
the mainline churches.
A new Gallup survey shows that the number of Americans who say they
"consider themselves part of a Christian tradition" fell 6 percentage
points, from 80% to 74%, from 1999 to 2006, while the number of people
who say they are not part of any religious tradition rose from 13% to
18% in the same period.
Reaching out with social action
"It's no longer the social norm to be a Christian," Jefferts Schori
says. Her answer isn't to ramp up on orthodoxy but to reach out to all
ages and cultures with Christlike social action.
Critics say she equivocates on essential doctrine - the necessity for
atonement and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ. They cite
interviews in which she has said living like Jesus in this world was a
more urgent task than worrying about the next world.
"It's not my job to pick" who is saved. "It's God's job," she tells
USA TODAY.
Yes, sin "is pervasive, part of human nature," but "it's not the
centerpiece of the Christian message. If we spend our time talking
about sin and depravity, it is all we see in the world," she says.
Here's where blood rushes into the blogs and critics pounce.
"Her theological statements are not orthodox Christian, not orthodox
Anglican. Frankly, they're bizarre," says the Rev. Canon David
Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council. He has aligned
with a group of U.S. churches that now answer to the Archbishop of
Nigeria.
Sisk disagrees sharply.
"She's profoundly faithful to the central claims of the church and the
Scriptures. People who say she's not are making that up. They just
don't agree with her. And the fact that she stays calm in the face of
a lot of pumped-up hype, that she just doesn't buy it, irritates
them."
Indeed, asked about her critics, Jefferts Schori doesn't blink. She
leans in, drops her voice even lower and cuts to the chase.
She sees two strands of faith: One is "most concerned with atonement,
that Jesus died for our sins and our most important task is to
repent." But the other is "the more gracious strand," says the bishop
who dresses like a sunrise.
It "is to talk about life, to claim the joy and the blessings for good
that it offers, to look forward.
"God became human in order that we may become divine. That's our
task."
----------------
THE JEFFERTS SCHORI FILE
· Age: 52. Born March 26, 1954, in Pensacola, Fla.
· Family: Married in 1979 to Richard Miles Schori, a retired
theoretical mathematician. One child, 2nd Lt. Katharine Johanna
Harris, 24, an Air Force pilot.
· Education: B.S. in biology from Stanford University, 1974; master's
and doctorate in oceanography from Oregon State University; master's
and doctorate in divinity from Church Divinity School of the Pacific.
· First career: Biological research as an oceanographer with the
National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle.
· Ordained: As a priest in 1994 and bishop of Nevada (6,000 members,
35 congregations) in 2001.
· Books: Five books on preaching and a newly published sermon
collection, A Wing and a Prayer.
· Other interests: Flying (owns a Cessna 172), backpacking, climbing.
All give her "new perspectives on Creation."
----------------
GOD IS IN THE DETAILS, AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA
In her new book, A Wing and a Prayer, the Right Rev. Katharine
Jefferts Schori comments on:
The sea and the spirit.
"During my time as an oceanographer, my mission was studying squids
and octopuses in the north Pacific. I had heard that prayer after
baptism that asks that the newly baptized may have 'the gift of joy
and wonder in all God's works.' Studying those strange and wondrous
creatures was my window into God's overflowing and outrageously
abundant creativity.
"And then my mission changed. When the opportunity to continue as an
oceanographer ended, I was grief-stricken. But God is always at work,
even when we can't see how. My priest helped me to wrestle with a call
to the priesthood, and in God's own time, God sent me off to try a new
way of building the reign of God."
Divisions among believers.
"The Anglican Communion is in the midst of some pretty profound
disunity, with primates lobbing fiats of disfellowship, edicts of
impaired communion, and, when all else fails, intercontinental
ballistic bishops. The middle way, the middle road, is the most
important, because there is something vital to be gained and learned
from the people on both shoulders. Gamaliel, the perennial pragmatist
in the Book of Acts, says, 'Well, what you're about may not be right,
but we'll just have to wait and see what comes of it. If it is of God,
then there won't be any stopping it.' "
cart...@gmail.com
> "The institution cannot give away its birthright and
> the gifts that belong to future generations. Our desire to reconcile
> continues, but if (the seceding churches) would prefer to be part of
> another tradition, then they are welcome to go. They just can't take
> what doesn't belong to them," she says, leaning forward.
The 'institution' ordains the unfaithful to the clergy and consecrates
bishops who live in sin and preach sin from the pulpit, and she talks
about giving away its birthright? And she's supposed to be
intelligent?
CC
Fred Goodwin, CMA
>
> The 'institution' ordains the unfaithful to the clergy and consecrates
> bishops who live in sin and preach sin from the pulpit, and she talks
> about giving away its birthright? And she's supposed to be
> intelligent?
We weren't supposed to notice that . . .
Charles Hohenstein
My favorite part of that article is where she talks about the "atonement
strand" distracting us from the more "gracious" task of feeling good
about life.
--
Charles Hohenstein
To reply, remove Gene Robinson
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers, treehuggers, social
climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies, and chronic petition signers that
makes up the current Episcopal Church . . ."--Thomas Lipscomb
Glorfindel
> Quote from the article:
>
>
>>"The institution cannot give away its birthright and
>>the gifts that belong to future generations. Our desire to reconcile
>>continues, but if (the seceding churches) would prefer to be part of
>>another tradition, then they are welcome to go. They just can't take
>>what doesn't belong to them," she says, leaning forward.
> The 'institution' ordains the unfaithful to the clergy and consecrates
> bishops who live in sin and preach sin from the pulpit, and she talks
Your opinion, Carter.
> about giving away its birthright?
Yes. Think for just a moment,if you can get past your
knee-jerk response on homosexuality. The Church has
*always* had clergy who were less than perfect in one
way or another, over the centuries. That was Henry VIII's
excuse for expropriating the religious houses during
the break from Rome. And, once the property is stolen from
it's rightful owner, the thieves, and those who used the
stolen property to bribe them, will never want to give it
back. Taking property which belongs to the Episcopal
Church -- which was given to the *Episcopal Church*
by generations of Episcopalians -- is still theft. It
is no different from the Nazis expropriating the
property of Jews in the Reich, because (they claimed) the
Jews were no longer "really" German citizens, because
(they claimed) Jews were evil enemies of humanity, and so,
of course, it was just fine to steal what belonged to them
and give it to the "good Germans". Same with stealing the
property of the Episcopal church and giving it to the "good
Anglicans" on the basis of ideology.
> And she's supposed to be
> intelligent?
Indeed -- she IS intelligent.
cart...@gmail.com
> Yes. Think for just a moment,if you can get past your
> knee-jerk response on homosexuality.
This is not about homosexuality. Let me repeat that. THIS IS NOT ABOUT
HOMOSEXUALITY!
> The Church has
> *always* had clergy who were less than perfect in one
> way or another, over the centuries.
Yes, and occasionally it even elevated them to leadership positions.
However, this isn't about less than perfect clergy, but about the
EXPECTATIONS. Simply because we recognize human weakness and recognize
that imperfect people will sometimes stray doesn't mean that we should
enshrine sin and imperfection.
<snip>
> back. Taking property which belongs to the Episcopal
> Church -- which was given to the *Episcopal Church*
> by generations of Episcopalians -- is still theft.
So is changing the doctrine of the church. In fact, changing doctrine
is worse than theft. Property can be replaced, lost souls can't. As I
understand it, one of the legal issues is whether the organization
that calls itself TEC is really the Episcopal Church. Research the cy-
pres doctrine and frustration of the original purpose of a trust.
> It
> is no different from the Nazis expropriating the
> property of Jews in the Reich, because (they claimed) the
> Jews were no longer "really" German citizens, because
> (they claimed) Jews were evil enemies of humanity, and so,
> of course, it was just fine to steal what belonged to them
> and give it to the "good Germans". Same with stealing the
> property of the Episcopal church and giving it to the "good
> Anglicans" on the basis of ideology.
Ah, the last refuge of a person with no argument left -- liken your
opponent to the Nazis.
The point is that TEC is in the process of killing the soul of the
church while retaining the physical assets. In the end, you will only
have a corpse. You know as well as I do that the 'church' to whom the
various benefactors over the years left the property is not the same
'church' that exists today. Just as Esau sold his birthright for a
mess of pottage, TEC has sold its birthright for a secular notion. I
just noted the irony of Schorri using the term 'birthright' in
claiming to preserve the church when the concept of a female priest
has been rejected overwhelmingly by Christianity over the centuries.
Not to mention the issue of non-celibate single men as priests.
CC
Glorfindel
>> Yes. Think for just a moment,if you can get past your
>> knee-jerk response on homosexuality.
> This is not about homosexuality. Let me repeat that. THIS IS NOT ABOUT
> HOMOSEXUALITY!
Of course it is.
<snip>
>> back. Taking property which belongs to the Episcopal
>> Church -- which was given to the *Episcopal Church*
>> by generations of Episcopalians -- is still theft.
> So is changing the doctrine of the church. In fact, changing doctrine
> is worse than theft. Property can be replaced, lost souls can't. As I
> understand it, one of the legal issues is whether the organization
> that calls itself TEC is really the Episcopal Church.
Legally for purposes of ownership of property, it certainly is.
> Research the cy-
> pres doctrine and frustration of the original purpose of a trust.
>>It
>> is no different from the Nazis expropriating the
>> property of Jews in the Reich, because (they claimed) the
>> Jews were no longer "really" German citizens, because
>> (they claimed) Jews were evil enemies of humanity, and so,
>> of course, it was just fine to steal what belonged to them
>> and give it to the "good Germans". Same with stealing the
>> property of the Episcopal church and giving it to the "good
>> Anglicans" on the basis of ideology.
> Ah, the last refuge of a person with no argument left -- liken your
> opponent to the Nazis.
The analogy is appropriate when it is accurate.
The legal opinion in the Reich was that citizenship in the *State*
depended not only on demonstrable physical facts such as place
of birth and status under positive law, but on subjective factors --
the person's mental attitude and opinions. Thus, not only those
of Jewish ancestry ( a objective, legally provable fact ) but
those of "Aryan" ancestry who had the wrong subjective views,
were denied *legal* status as German citizens. The position
presented by those trying to take the property of the Episcopal
church is similar. Legally, there is no question the property
belongs to the legal, factual, objectively existing corporate
body known as the Episcopal church. It makes no sense to
demand that the subjective theological opinions of individuals
in leadership positions in the corporate body should determine
ownership in the secular, legal area of property ownership.
This is an aspect of separation of Church and State in the U.S.
cart...@gmail.com
> > This is not about homosexuality. Let me repeat that. THIS IS NOT ABOUT
> > HOMOSEXUALITY!
>
> Of course it is.
No it's not. You simply haven't been paying attention, to the debate,
scripture, or apparently anything else except your own passions.
State, being, or condition is not a prerequisite to living a life of
Christian discipleship. In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or
free, male or female, etc. In particular, there is no gay or straigt.
What there is ... is behavior, serving the natural lusts, serving
Mammon. Condition or orientation is not destiny. You suggestion that
gays MUST(!!!) live a life of depravity is foul and offensive. That
isn't true, and the testimony of Christian homosexuals support that. I
have named one, Jeffery John, a Christian homosexual who has accepted
celibacy.
> > So is changing the doctrine of the church. In fact, changing doctrine
> > is worse than theft. Property can be replaced, lost souls can't. As I
> > understand it, one of the legal issues is whether the organization
> > that calls itself TEC is really the Episcopal Church.
>
> Legally for purposes of ownership of property, it certainly is.
The Church is not building or lands, but the community of the saints.
If you stand on legality, then you might as well pass a law requiring
God not to discriminate on the basis of grace.
> The legal opinion in the Reich was that citizenship in the *State*
> depended not only on demonstrable physical facts such as place
> of birth and status under positive law, but on subjective factors --
> the person's mental attitude and opinions. Thus, not only those
> of Jewish ancestry ( a objective, legally provable fact ) but
> those of "Aryan" ancestry who had the wrong subjective views,
> were denied *legal* status as German citizens. The position
> presented by those trying to take the property of the Episcopal
> church is similar. Legally, there is no question the property
> belongs to the legal, factual, objectively existing corporate
> body known as the Episcopal church. It makes no sense to
> demand that the subjective theological opinions of individuals
> in leadership positions in the corporate body should determine
> ownership in the secular, legal area of property ownership.
You are as unfamiliar with legal doctrine as you are Christian
doctrine. A 'trust' is a concept where the legal and the equitable
ownership are split. One person, called the trustee, holds legal
title, while another, called the beneficiary, holds equitable title.
At law, the legal owner, the trustee, prevails. In equity, the
equitable owner, the beneficiary. prevails. In the U.S., law and
equity have been merged, but equity trumps law. Look it up if you have
an interest.
> This is an aspect of separation of Church and State in the U.S.
Not necessarily. I am tangentially involved in a case now where
competing church factions have laid claim to a church's endowment
(several million $$), and the court has to decide, based on doctrine,
which faction is the 'real' church. In this case, the issue is not
homosexuality, but Calvinism vs. Arminianism. In this case, I have a
personal relationship with the judge of long standing, and I can tell
you for a fact that the appealate court is requiring him to decide who
gets the money, and the only basis for the decision is who holds the
'true' doctrine.
Where is the separation of church and state here?
CC
Glorfindel
>>>This is not about homosexuality. Let me repeat that. THIS IS NOT ABOUT
>>>HOMOSEXUALITY!
>> Of course it is.
<snip>
> You suggestion that
> gays MUST(!!!) live a life of depravity is foul and offensive.
Indeed it would be if I had said any such thing -- but, of
course, I didn't. Once again, begging the question.
> That
> isn't true, and the testimony of Christian homosexuals support that. I
> have named one, Jeffery John, a Christian homosexual who has accepted
> celibacy.
And there are Christian heterosexuals who are celibate, but
that does not mean all heterosexuals must be celibate to
be Christian.
>>>So is changing the doctrine of the church. In fact, changing doctrine
>>>is worse than theft. Property can be replaced, lost souls can't. As I
>>>understand it, one of the legal issues is whether the organization
>>>that calls itself TEC is really the Episcopal Church.
>>Legally for purposes of ownership of property, it certainly is.
> The Church is not building or lands, but the community of the saints.
In theology -- but NOT in law or property ownership.
> If you stand on legality, then you might as well pass a law requiring
> God not to discriminate on the basis of grace.
The law can't say anything about what God does, but the law
must decide on the question of secular property ownership.
>> The legal opinion in the Reich was that citizenship in the *State*
>> depended not only on demonstrable physical facts such as place
>> of birth and status under positive law, but on subjective factors --
>> the person's mental attitude and opinions. Thus, not only those
>> of Jewish ancestry ( a objective, legally provable fact ) but
>> those of "Aryan" ancestry who had the wrong subjective views,
>> were denied *legal* status as German citizens. The position
>> presented by those trying to take the property of the Episcopal
>> church is similar. Legally, there is no question the property
>> belongs to the legal, factual, objectively existing corporate
>> body known as the Episcopal church. It makes no sense to
>> demand that the subjective theological opinions of individuals
>> in leadership positions in the corporate body should determine
>> ownership in the secular, legal area of property ownership.
> You are as unfamiliar with legal doctrine as you are Christian
> doctrine.
Then I must know a lot about the law. :)
> A 'trust' is a concept where the legal and the equitable
> ownership are split. One person, called the trustee, holds legal
> title, while another, called the beneficiary, holds equitable title.
> At law, the legal owner, the trustee, prevails.
As I said. The corporate body holds legal title to the
property given to it. If members of the corporate body
declare themselves *NO LONGER MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATE
BODY*, which is what those splitting from authority of
their bishop under canon law, and membership in the
Episcopal church, have done, they no longer have any
rights as beneficiaries of the corporate body.
> In equity, the
> equitable owner, the beneficiary. prevails. In the U.S., law and
> equity have been merged, but equity trumps law. Look it up if you have
> an interest.
>> This is an aspect of separation of Church and State in the U.S.
> Not necessarily. I am tangentially involved in a case now where
> competing church factions have laid claim to a church's endowment
> (several million $$), and the court has to decide, based on doctrine,
> which faction is the 'real' church.
That is clearly a violation of separation of church and state.
> In this case, the issue is not
> homosexuality, but Calvinism vs. Arminianism. In this case, I have a
> personal relationship with the judge of long standing,
Isn't that a conflict of interest? I would consider that
unethical.
> and I can tell
> you for a fact that the appealate court is requiring him to decide who
> gets the money, and the only basis for the decision is who holds the
> 'true' doctrine.
That is simply wrong. It is not the area of authority of secular law.
cart...@gmail.com
> > You suggestion that
> > gays MUST(!!!) live a life of depravity is foul and offensive.
>
> Indeed it would be if I had said any such thing -- but, of
> course, I didn't. Once again, begging the question.
What you have said is a matter of public record. Anyone who is
interested can test your denial against your long history of posts in
this newsgroup and others. They will discover that what I said is true
and what you said is false.
> And there are Christian heterosexuals who are celibate, but
> that does not mean all heterosexuals must be celibate to
> be Christian.
The point is that sexual actvity outside of marriage is sin. It
doesn't matter what the status, condition, orientation, or preference
of the person is. A non-celibate single person does not practice
Christianity according to the NT and the Church, and his gayness or
straightness is wholly irrelevant.
> The law can't say anything about what God does, but the law
> must decide on the question of secular property ownership.
Thank you. That was exactly my point. Whether or not the people in
positions of power have forfieted they positions by their behavrior is
a legal question.
> > A 'trust' is a concept where the legal and the equitable
> > ownership are split. One person, called the trustee, holds legal
> > title, while another, called the beneficiary, holds equitable title.
> > At law, the legal owner, the trustee, prevails.
>
> As I said. The corporate body holds legal title to the
> property given to it. If members of the corporate body
> declare themselves *NO LONGER MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATE
> BODY*, which is what those splitting from authority of
> their bishop under canon law, and membership in the
> Episcopal church, have done, they no longer have any
> rights as beneficiaries of the corporate body.
Obviously this depends on the facts of each case. My point was that
the equitable owners of the property have legally cognizable claims.
Let me give you an example. In most states, a mortgagee holds legal
title while the mortgagor holds only an equitable interest. If the
mortgagor pays off the mortgage, he has a right to compel the
mortgagee to reconvey legal title to him. In other words, the
equitable interest of the mortgagor trumps the legal title of the
mortgagee. Same thing with a trust corpus. There have been many, many
cases going back centuries where courts have upheld the right of the
equitable owner over the right of the legal owner.
> That is clearly a violation of separation of church and state.
No, it's the function of the state to provide for dispute resolution.
> Isn't that a conflict of interest? I would consider that
> unethical.
I'm not part of the church, the case, or either faction, but merely an
interested onlooker. Besides, I haven't practiced law for 15 years, so
how could I have a conflict of interest?
> That is simply wrong. It is not the area of authority of secular law.
If someone threatens you with harm unless you give him money, won't
the secular law take notice? Doesn't matter if the 'someone' is a
natural person, a corporation, or an unincorporated entity such as a
church.
CC
Glorfindel
<snip>
>> The law can't say anything about what God does, but the law
>> must decide on the question of secular property ownership.
> Thank you. That was exactly my point. Whether or not the people in
> positions of power have forfieted they positions by their behavrior is
> a legal question.
This must not be based on questions of theology. That is
absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional and a
violation of separation of church and state in America.
The *ONLY* behavior which would be relevant to the
SECULAR question of who owns the property would be: (1)
are those involved officially members of the Episcopal
Church USA? Certainly the bishops and loyal officials
of the parishes involved are. Those who have removed
themselves from membership voluntarily, by becoming
members of a foreign Anglican ( non-ECUSA ) body
clearly are no longer members of the ECUSA, and so
have no right to unauthorized use of ECUSA possessions.
Those who have been involuntarily removed by those in
legitimate authority in the ECUSA also have no right
to unauthorized use of ECUSA property.
(2) Are those officials of the ECUSA neglecting their
obligations to the trustees? The only way these could
be measured by secular law would be to ask if the
parish officials have refused to hold services, offer
the sacraments, and so on. The SECULAR LAW has
ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY to define whether the content
of the sacraments is valid or not, or whether the
priest's theology is correct or not. The very idea
of allowing the SECULAR LEGAL POWER to define the
truth of theology for a non-established, independent
religious body should send chills of horror through
any American with any understanding of this
nation's history.
<snip>
>
>>That is simply wrong. It is not the area of authority of secular law.
> If someone threatens you with harm unless you give him money, won't
> the secular law take notice? Doesn't matter if the 'someone' is a
> natural person, a corporation, or an unincorporated entity such as a
> church.
It seems those attempting to take ECUSA property without
authorization by the ECUSA authorities are the ones
threatening harm -- i.e., theft of another's legal
property.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
I know she doesn't mind losing
one million members.
" Statistics don't scare her, she says. Yes, membership is down
from 3.2
million in 1960 to 2.2 million today,"
But when it come to property
she draws the line.
"She's sad to see them go, but not so sad that she won't fight for
their properties."
It is really sad when property is more
important than people,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-02-04-jefferts-schori-
cover_x.htm
We all know Jesus told the high priest you
can't take my property, since I own the
temple.
We now see TEC prefers empty buildings
to people.
I remember Bp. Moore of NY's sadness
when a church was turned into a disco.
The Church is the people not the
buildings. Just as in the 4th century when
the Arians won the favor of the Emperor
or the state, great bishops like the African
Athanasius defied those Arian bishops.
Funny how history repeats itself.
Jim
If TEC wants to change its religion,
I see no reason to change mine.
Athanasius Against the World: Still Looking for Some Company
October 2005By Daniel M. Hoffman
Daniel M. Hoffman, the father of five daughters, is a sales manager
who writes from Berwyn, Pennsylvania.
The doctrine of Arianism, which questioned Christ's divinity,
appeared to be on its way to complete acceptance in the Church when
the Council of Nicaea was held in A.D. 325. A fiery subdeacon named
Athanasius came to the Council from Egypt and was an almost solitary
voice against the teachings of Arius. After the Council and the
adoption of the Nicene Creed, most of the bishops and leaders in the
Church wavered due to intense theological, philosophical, and
political pressure. Arianism was ascendant once more. There was only
one thing in its way -- Athanasius, who was now the Bishop of
Alexandria, united with the Bishop of Rome. Confident in his belief
that Christ was co-eternal with the Father, he refused to bend to the
pressures brought against him by many of the bishops, and even the
emperor. Finally, after years of exile, turmoil, and constant
struggle, Athanasius won the day and the Nicene Creed was recognized
as a truth of Christianity. In historical terms, he stood against the
world and won.
Glorfindel
<snip>
> It is really sad when property is more
> important than people,
It is not. The core issue is that the Episcopal Church
and the Presiding Bishop hold that property in trust for
the members of the Episcopal Church, including the
future members of the Episcopal Church. The church has
no legal or moral right to surrender what it holds in
trust, what was given into its keeping by past and current
members, to those who wish to alienate the property from
the church. To do so would be a serious violation of
a serious moral obligation. It is indeed the church's
obligation *TO* its people, to its members, which is
involved.
If my father had wanted to give a memorial window in
memory of my brother, killed in Korea, to a Nigerian
church, he would have done so. If I had wanted to give
a memorial shrine in memory of my father to a Nigerian
church, I would have done so. We did not. Both of us
gave these things to *the Episcopal Church USA * and
those like us will resist with all our legal
and moral power the attempt of some Nigerian bishop to
steal these gifts to the church in memory of our dead.
It would dishonor the memory of my father and my
brother to allow the theft, and I am glad the church
is holding firm in defending her birthright.
<snip>
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> carte...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The law can't say anything about what God does, but the law
> >> must decide on the question of secular property ownership.
> > Thank you. That was exactly my point. Whether or not the people in
> > positions of power have forfieted they positions by their behavrior is
> > a legal question.
>
> This must not be based on questions of theology. That is
> absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional and a
> violation of separation of church and state in America.
Hang on; you give money to promote a particular purpose, one of the
trustees decides to use it to promote his own purpose, and you can't
complain?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Glorfindel
>>carte...@gmail.com wrote:
>> <snip>
Two things:
There is a difference between money and physical property.
You can always cancel your pledge and walk away -- many
people did that when the Episcopal church supported civil
rights for African-Americans and ordination of women,
and many others are doing so now. But it's a lot harder
to remove a church building.
Second, in this conflict both sides believe they are
promoting the purpose for which the funds/property
were given. The Episcopal church officials are doing
what they believe those for whom they hold the
property in trust intended them to use the property to
do. The difference of opinion on this hangs on a
question of pure theological understanding: how the
Bible should be interpreted and, to a lesser degree,
how church canon should be interpreted. Neither one
of those questions lies within the competence of the
SECULAR legal system, and to give the secular legal
system power to decide the issue is a very dangerous
and potentially disastrous action which could destroy
the organized church in the future.
cart...@gmail.com
> > It is really sad when property is more
> > important than people,
>
> It is not. The core issue is that the Episcopal Church
> and the Presiding Bishop hold that property in trust for
> the members of the Episcopal Church, including the
> future members of the Episcopal Church.
Whoa, hoss. The key phrase is 'in trust.' It's so common for a trustee
to pervert the trust estate to his own end that FOR CENTURIES(!)
we''ve had a phrase to describe this. I told you this earlier in this
thread, but you either didn't read it or were to stupid to decipher
the meaning. If A leaves property in trust to B for the benefit of C,
B becomes the legal owner but C becomes the beneficial owner. If later
own B decides to use the trust estate for an end other than that which
A specified, C has a right to enforce the terms of the trust.
If I leave property to a Christian church (such as TEC) and that
church decides that it's no longer a Christian church, TEC has not
only made itself liable for violating the terms of the trust, but the
beneficiaries have the right to enforce the terms of the trust.
> The church has
> no legal or moral right to surrender what it holds in
> trust, what was given into its keeping by past and current
> members, to those who wish to alienate the property from
> the church.
This sounds suspiciously like a legal or moral argument to me.
Citations to support your theory?
TEC has no moral right to ordain adulterers to the ministry, or to
proclaim that there are 'other ways to God' apart from Jesus Christ,
or to solemnize as marriages partnerships between people not otherwise
eligible for marriage (such as two men or two women.) TEC has a
doctrine, and that doctrine is not a blank slate upon which each
generation can write what it pleases.
> To do so would be a serious violation of
> a serious moral obligation. It is indeed the church's
> obligation *TO* its people, to its members, which is
> involved.
You've GOT to be joking, right? The current leadership of TEC pays no
attention whatsoever to 'serious moral oblications.'
> If my father had wanted to give a memorial window in
> memory of my brother, killed in Korea, to a Nigerian
> church, he would have done so. If I had wanted to give
> a memorial shrine in memory of my father to a Nigerian
> church, I would have done so. We did not. Both of us
> gave these things to *the Episcopal Church USA * and
> those like us will resist with all our legal
> and moral power the attempt of some Nigerian bishop to
> steal these gifts to the church in memory of our dead.
> It would dishonor the memory of my father and my
> brother to allow the theft, and I am glad the church
> is holding firm in defending her birthright.
The question is: what is "the Epicopal Church USA"? If the people in
charge abandon the core beliefs of TEC, is it still TEC? Obviously,
the answer is, "No." The current debate in the AC is whether TEC has
strayed so far from the faith that it can no longer belong to the AC.
It seems clear that the overwhemling consensus of opinion worldwide is
that it has. My opinion and yours as well are meaningless, it's the
consensus of the body.
What you suggest is the same as an excommunicated priest claiming to
hold on to the powers and emoluments of his office. If TEC is expelled
from the AC as an heretical organization, won't that be a violation of
the trust of property given to a Christian church? If TEC is declared
to be a non-christian, heretical group, the simply as a matter of law
it would lose it's claim to all property given to it as trustee as a
Christian church. This is the law, and if you don't believe me, ask
anyone who knows anything about the law of trusts. A good starting
point for you (I assume that you are a resident of New Mexico) would
be section 46A-4-405 of the New Mexico Code. You will see that this
section specfically references the cy pres doctrine I discussed
earlier in this thread.
I don't pretend to predict the outcome of any case, but merely seek to
point out that an entity entrusted with property has the obligation to
remain true to the terms of the trust, which in the case of TEC is
questionable.
CC
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Africans are stealing churches in America?
What crap, pardon my French.
The fact is people who gave money to build
churches, are now being told they must
conform or leave. Naturally they fight back,
but ultimetly they will chose the Faith over
buildings and leave..
You prove my point you aren't concerned
at why over one million people left in the
past 40 years, but the buildings causes you
to fight. I hope you shall be happy with
all those empty buildings.
Others are more concerned with preaching
the Gospel of our sins being forgiven in Christ.
I am sad that you won't join us.
Jim
1Co 2:2 -For I determined not to know
any thing among you,
save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Glorfindel
<snip>
> If I leave property to a Christian church (such as TEC) and that
> church decides that it's no longer a Christian church,
But indeed the Episcopal church USA most definitely and
specifically states that it is, and remains, a Christian
church. The answer of the church to the Windsor Report
is *titled* _To Set Our hope on Christ_. The secular
legal system should NOT have any power -- and certainly
has no right -- to define what is or is not Christian.
You realize that the secular government under control of
RC church authorities would define the Baptists as "not
Christian". Do you want to say that is legitimate?
<snip>
> TEC has no moral right to ordain adulterers to the ministry,
As you note, it has not, according to canon
> or to
> proclaim that there are 'other ways to God' apart from Jesus Christ,
The interpretation on this has been discussed here.
> or to solemnize as marriages partnerships between people not otherwise
> eligible for marriage (such as two men or two women.)
It has not.
<snip>
> The question is: what is "the Epicopal Church USA"?
Those who are officially communicants in the church --
by any objective, legal-style definition. Even
Queen Elizabeth I did not claim to see into the
hearts or souls of men.
<snip>
> If the people in
> charge abandon the core beliefs of TEC, is it still TEC? Obviously,
> the answer is, "No." The current debate in the AC is whether TEC has
> strayed so far from the faith that it can no longer belong to the AC.
Which has no authority whatever over the Episcopal church USA.
It's capacity is strictly advisory
<snip>
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
I wonder how the Church survived Roman
persecution without all those buildings?
" While praying at the dilapidated church of San Damiano, Francis
heard Christ speak to him, telling him to "repair my church." Francis
took this literally, assuming it applied to the small church he was
praying in, and began immediately to rebuild its crumbling walls.
(Only later would this command be understood as a call to rebuild the
spiritual foundations of the Church, with a capital "C".)"
http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/F/FrancisofAss/index.htm
Jim
cart...@gmail.com
that when a trustee misuses the trust estate it can be compeled to
make it right. There really isn't an issue as to this point.
I also take it that you agree that if TEC, in its capacity as a
trustee, abandons the Christian faith, it lose both its legal claim
and its moral claim to the property which it holds in trust for
Christian purposes.
The only question remaining is whether TEC has abandoned or is
presently adandoning the Christian faith. Neither you nor I have the
authority to decide this question. But I'll make you a bet. I'll bet
you that within the next ten years, TEC will either (1) forswear its
ordination of non-celibate singles to the ministry or (2) a court --
at least one -- will decide against the TEC in a property dispute. In
fact, this is a safe bet, because it's already happened. The case is
on appeal, so we'll have to wait and see the ultimate outcome.
CC
Michael James
> cart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If I leave property to a Christian church (such as TEC) and that
>> church decides that it's no longer a Christian church,
>
>
> But indeed the Episcopal church USA most definitely and
> specifically states that it is, and remains, a Christian
> church. The answer of the church to the Windsor Report
> is *titled* _To Set Our hope on Christ_. The secular
> legal system should NOT have any power -- and certainly
> has no right -- to define what is or is not Christian.
> You realize that the secular government under control of
> RC church authorities would define the Baptists as "not
> Christian". Do you want to say that is legitimate?
>
>
> <snip>
Well that the "I'm a Christian and you're not" game. CC loves to play
it, just the RCs do and a lot of Orthodox as well. In that he has much
in common with the RC's and Orthodox.
And we all know that God has ordained certain people like CC etc. to
know who are real Christians and who are not real Christians, so if he
says the TEC is not really Christian then of course we must believe what
CC says. ... and don't bother to try and show him otherwise, because he
will tell you how wrong you are.
Glorfindel
<snip>
>
> I wonder how the Church survived Roman
> persecution without all those buildings?
Partly at least by not allowing the
secular Roman state to define what
theology was correct. As soon as
the Church came under control of the
Emperor, the same kind of problems
we are seeing now began to crop up in the
Church of that time.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 8 Feb, 21:45, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
> >>carte...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>> The law can't say anything about what God does, but the law
> >>>> must decide on the question of secular property ownership.
> >>>Thank you. That was exactly my point. Whether or not the people in
> >>>positions of power have forfieted they positions by their behavrior is
> >>>a legal question.
> >> This must not be based on questions of theology. That is
> >> absolutely and unquestionably unconstitutional and a
> >> violation of separation of church and state in America.
> > Hang on; you give money to promote a particular purpose, one of the
> > trustees decides to use it to promote his own purpose, and you can't
> > complain?
>
> Two things:
>
> There is a difference between money and physical property.
> You can always cancel your pledge and walk away ...
I am unclear how this relates to my comment -- sorry. We're
discussing money given in the past, surely?
> Second, in this conflict both sides believe they are
> promoting the purpose for which the funds/property
> were given.
You give me $100k to give to the poor. Instead I set up a fund and
divert the money to use promoting nationalism (or whatever). When
asked, I say, "it's the same thing". In your view, I'm away free?
Surely any cause that has to be defended by that sort of argument has
lost the argument.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
So then that means you are willing to
give up "your" church buildings as many
of the orthodox have had to do or are you
willing to use state power to keep your
"property".
Jim
1Pe 2:5 - Ye also, as lively stones,
are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Yes, We all know that they went to
the Roman Senate to get their property
back after being fed to the lions?
In fact, in the fourth century the Arians
went to the Emperor to get the orthodox
thrown out of the churches, and the Arians
were opposed by the great African bishop
Athanasius.
Who says history doesn't repeat?
Jim
Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints.
Glorfindel
<snip>
>>> I wonder how the Church survived Roman
>>> persecution without all those buildings?
>> Partly at least by not allowing the
>> secular Roman state to define what
>> theology was correct. As soon as
>> the Church came under control of the
>> Emperor, the same kind of problems
>> we are seeing now began to crop up in the
>> Church of that time.
> Yes, We all know that they went to
> the Roman Senate to get their property
> back after being fed to the lions?
Oh, for heaven's sake -- get a clue. You
are confusing historical periods. After
Constantine made Christianity the State
religion, the State started to claim authority
over which groups were to be considered
orthodox. As you note below, some secular
authorities supported groups which were
later declared heretical by the Roman church,
and others did not. This relationship
between the secular authorities and the local
version of Christianity favored by the king
or prince continued down through the era
of the Reformation, and even later in
countries with an established religion. In
many cases it was the "heretical" who were
persecuted by the Roman ( self-defined as
orthodox) church, as in the case of the
Crusade against the Cathars in Europe.
We're all aware of the secular laws against
the Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters
in England into the 19th century.
It is not that the secular state supports
either "orthodox" or "non-orthodox" -- it
has done both at various times and places,
depending on who is defining "orthodox".
It is that the secular state should have no
power or authority to enforce ANY religion
or to favor one religious group over another.
> In fact, in the fourth century the Arians
> went to the Emperor to get the orthodox
> thrown out of the churches, and the Arians
> were opposed by the great African bishop
> Athanasius.
> Who says history doesn't repeat?
History never repeats. That's what
makes it history instead of science.
Each historical event is unique, and
one of the first things historians learn
is not to make the mistake of thinking
two historical events are the same.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> I wonder how the Church survived Roman
> >>> persecution without all those buildings?
> >> Partly at least by not allowing the
> >> secular Roman state to define what
> >> theology was correct. As soon as
> >> the Church came under control of the
> >> Emperor, the same kind of problems
> >> we are seeing now began to crop up in the
> >> Church of that time.
> > Yes, We all know that they went to
> > the Roman Senate to get their property
> > back after being fed to the lions?
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake -- get a clue. You
> are confusing historical periods. After
> Constantine made Christianity the State
> religion, the State started to claim authority
> over which groups were to be considered
> orthodox. As you note below, some secular
> authorities supported groups which were
> later declared heretical by the Roman church,
> and others did not.
The dispute between the orthodox and the Arians
is well documented.
The writings in question consist of Athanasius's works which
survive in Greek and are generally considered authentic, treated under
four headings: Apologetic writings (Against the Pagans and On the
Incarnation), Dogmatic-Polemical writings (Against the Arians 1-3),
Historical-Polemical writings (Three Apologies and the History of the
Arians) and Pastoral writings (Personal letters and the Life of
Antony).
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-07-57.html
Scholasticus: Ecclesiastical History;
Sozomenus: Ecclesiastical History
http://www.aroundomaha.com/ecf/volume25/
The Roman Empire did not decide what
doctrine's were orthodox. What saved the
orthodox was the defeat of the Arian Emperor
Valens by the Goths in 378 A.D.
When the Emperor called for negotiations between the Arians, the
Trinitarians, and the moderates seeking compromise, Athanasius refused
to participate because he knew that if unity and compromise were
sought above all else (which seemed to be the case here), then the
truth of the Scriptures and what they said about the Son's
relationship to the Father would be compromised as well.[23]
Athanasius made it clear that he would defend the full deity of
Christ against great odds - to such an extent that an expression
arose: "Athanasius contra mundum" - 'Athanasius against the world.'
Rumors began to arise about Athanasius' religious practices and
private life. He was accused of dabbling in magic and that he was a
dictator over his church in Alexandria. As a result, he had to answer
to the emperor concerning these charges. Of course, he was innocent -
he was far too disciplined a man to practice such things. Once again
he defeated the Arians, though the war was not over.[24]
The Five Exiles
Athanasius would be sentenced to five exiles in the days after
Nicaea. In spite of the success of Nicaea, the Arians would soon sway
the imperial throne toward their cause. And with Athanasius being
such a formidable foe and the leader of the Trinitarian cause --- not
to mention that he is never one to back down from a fight for truth
--- would often be the recipient of the Arian imperial wrath.
The First Exile
Athanasius' refusal to attend these negotiations coupled with the
rumors circulating about him did not earn him much favor with Emperor
Constantine. Eusebius of Nicodemia (the Arian supporter), who was
exiled by the Emperor due to his part in the Arian controversy, had
been recalled from exile. He garnered great favor with Constantine,
even to the point of convincing the emperor to recall Arius from exile
as well. [25]
Eusebius' influence increased to such an extent that Constantine wrote
a letter to young Athanasius in the year 330 saying that the Arian
view presented by Eusebius of Nicodemia had been distorted and was
persuaded that those willing to submit to the Nicaean definitions
should be readmitted into the Church. Athanasius refused this saying
that no fellowship could exist between the Church and "the one who
denied the divinity of Christ."[26]
Eusebius, using his garnered favor with the Emperor, trumped up
charges to Constantine about how Athanasius was bragging about his
ability to stop shipments of food from Egypt to Rome. These and other
charges were refuted by a trial. Yet, when he was summoned to appear
before a synod of prelates at Tyre in 355, it was clear that "the
complexion of the ruling party in the synod made it evident that
justice to the accused was the last thing that was thought of."
Athanasius refused to be tried there.[27]
Athanasius knew he had to obtain an audience with the Emperor, but
Eusebius was blocking every opportunity. He resorted to drastic
measures. After Constantine was returning from a hunt, Athanasius
jumped in front of the Emperor as he was riding his horse, grabbed the
horse's bridle and kept it until he could speak his peace. [28] Yet
from the time of Constantine's granting of an audience to Athanasius'
arrival before him, Eusebius stirred up his faction and resubmitted
the charges to Constantine during Athanasius' appearance before him.
Constantine ruled in favor of Eusebius and sent Athanasius into exile
at Trier. He stayed in exile for two and a half years.
The Second Exile
Soon after Athanasius was sent to Trier, Arius had died (336) and
Constantine died the following year (337). His sons, Constantine II,
Constans, and Constanius jointly took the throne and immediately
decided that all exiled bishops could return to their places of
service. Athanasius' church were still devoted to him, but upon his
return an Arian faction had taken root in Alexandria and claim that
due to Athanasius' prolonged absence that he was no longer a
legitimate bishop. After gaining support from the authorities in
Alexandria, Gregory (the Arian leader of that contingent with the
backing on Constantine II) tried to take over Athanasius' church.
When Athanasius refused, a skirmish broke out with such violent that
he felt it best to leave the city and go to Rome. [29]
While in Rome, Athanasius presented the Nicene position to Julius, the
Bishop of Rome, and garnered the favor of the Roman clergy. Soon, he
was declared by a synod in Rome to be the legitimate bishop of
Alexandria and that Gregory must go. Yet, since Constantine II was
still alive, Athanasius could not return as yet, but as Gonzalez
points out, "it did signal the support of the Western church for the
Nicene cause, and for Athanasius in particular."[30]
When Constantine II died, Constans became the sole emperor of the West
while Constantius (an avowed Arian) was emperor in the East.. After
two years in Rome, Constans summoned Athanasius to Milan. Soon,
Constants convinced Constantius to allow Athanasius to come back to
his see in Alexandria. When this was granted and Athanasius returned
to Alexandria, he was welcomed back as a hero. He was in relative
safety for the next ten years.
The Third Exile
Eastern Emperor Constantius (pro-Arian) endured Athanasius' presence
in Alexandria for the sake of his brother in the West, Emperor
Constans, and due to tumultuous circumstances along the border of
Persia.[31] In A.D. 352, Julius (the Bishop of Rome) died and was
replaced by Liberius, who was favorable to Athanasius for a time.
Yet, when he faced exile, he was forced to sign "an ambiguous formula,
from which the great Nicene test, the homoousion, had be studiously
omitted."[32]
To make matters worse, in A.D. 353, Constantius became the ruler of
the entire Empire and he now had free reign to put his pro-Arian
policies into play. He convened a synod to denounce Athanasius. When
told that it was the church's policy that someone could not be
condemned without a formal hearing, Constantius responded, "My will
also is a canon of the church." Scared, many bishops signed the
condemnation of Athanasius. Those who refused were banished from the
church.[33]
Constantius sent a letter to Athanasius granting him an audience. He
answered politely that there must have been an error, for he did not
request one. The Emperor then ordered troops to be sent to Alexandria
and then the governor of Alexandria, upon seeing the troops, ordered
Athanasius to leave the city. The wise bishop then showed an order
from the Emperor himself granting permission for Athanasius to be in
Alexandria, knowing that the Emperor would not contradict himself. It
was during communion that Athanasius' church was stormed by imperial
soldiers and thus removed Athanasius from his see. This begins his
third exile.[34]
For the next six years, Athanasius dwelt with his friends who always
gave him safe harbor when necessary: the desert monks. Whenever an
imperial officer approached one of the monastic communities, they
would safely and secretly transport him to another community. During
these years, he wrote Apology to Constantius, Apology for his Flight,
Letter to the Monks, and the History of the Arians.[35]
During these years as well, the Nicean contingent suffered great
obstacles and opposition. As previously mentioned, the imperial
throne was in favor of Arius, plus several councils met and endorsed
(by force) Arianism; even the elderly Bishop Liberius of Rome were
encouraged (by force) to sign Arian confessions of faith. Arians even
convened at the city of Sirmium and decidedly rejected Nicaea's
decisions. This was known as the "Blasphemy of Sirmium."[36]
Soon, news came that Emperor Constantius died. This was in A.D. 361.
He was succeeded by Julius who was known for trying to restore
paganism to its former glory. He hoped that the Arians and the
Niceans would cancel each other out with their battles, so Julian
allowed all the exiled bishops to return to their sees, thus ending
Athanasius' third exile where he returned on February 22, 362.[37]
The Fourth Exile
Athanasius took this opportunity to shore up the decisions and
conclusions made at Nicaea. The issue of Christ being of "the same
substance" (homoousios) or of "a similar substance" (homoiousios)
still plagued the church. Gonzalez states that at an earlier time
considered those who advocated the homoiousios position "were as
heretical as the Arians ... was now ready to see the legitimate concern
of those Christians who, while refusing Arianism, were not ready to
give up the distinction between the Father and the Son."[38] Gonzalez
continues:
In a synod gathered in Alexandria in AD 362, Athanasius and his
followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit as "one substance" as long as this was not
understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that
it was also legitimate to speak of "three substances" as long as this
was not understood as if there were three gods.[39]
The church supported it and ratified it at the Council of
Constantinople in A.D. 381.
Athanasius' power was threatening to Julian and sought to remove
Athanasius once again from his See. When the people of Alexandria
protested, Athanasius encouraged them to submit to the order, saying
that "his absence would be of short duration."[40] Unexpectedly,
Julian left the imperial throne in 363, being replaced by Emperor
Jovian who reinstated Athanasius. With his fourth exile concluded,
Athanasius thought that the stormy waters would be calm.
The Fifth Exile
Just over a year after Jovian took the throne, he died. Valens, a
staunch Arian, took the throne and, once more, Athanasius went into
exile. Unlike Constantius and Julian, Valens did not debate with the
feared Athanasius. Valens banished the same bishops deposed by
Constantius. Yet, within a few weeks, Valens permitted Athanasius to
return to his see, where he spent the last nine years of his life in
relative peace from the imperial throne.[41]
Conclusion
As mentioned previously, Athanasius' doctrine drawn up at the synod of
Alexandria in 362 was ratified at the Second Ecumenical Council in
Constantinople in 381. Athanasius, who died in 373, never saw the
final victory of his lifelong cause. Yet, the church (especially the
Western church) will always be indebted to the good fight he fought in
protecting the Christological view of Scripture.
It is this writer's contention that the cause of Athanasius must still
be taken up in the 21st century. Certain cults (the Watchtower
Society, for one) hold to an Arian view of Christ being a lesser being
than the Father. Orthodox Christians of our time must be as much a
student of the Scriptures as Athanasius was. He did not bow to
philosophies nor compromise to Emperors. He did not quit when in
exile nor did he become complacent when at his church in Alexandria.
He was a driven, determined theologian who was short in stature but a
giant among the Eastern Fathers.
http://www.quodlibet.net/perry-athanasius.shtml
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
CITES: George Santayana,
http://members.aol.com/santayana/gsguestbook.htm
Many can see the parallel between the
orthodox and the
Arians in the current dispute between
the orthodox and the revisionists.
If you believe we can learn nothing
from history, that's your opinion,but then
you should argue to abolish the history
departments at our colleges and seminaries.
Jim
Glorfindel
>> <snip>
> The dispute between the orthodox and the Arians
> is well documented.
No kidding. I'm familiar with it. The point is
that in the areas where the Arian version of
Christianity was accepted, it WAS orthodox as
far as its members were concerned. Each
religious group considers itself "orthodox"
and it is not the place of the State to decide
the issue. That is the worst and most dangerous
form of tyranny over the souls of humanity.
It is also unconstitutional in the U.S.
<snip>
>> History never repeats. That's what
>> makes it history instead of science.
>> Each historical event is unique, and
>> one of the first things historians learn
>> is not to make the mistake of thinking
>> two historical events are the same.
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> CITES: George Santayana,
...but they never repeat it exactly.
> Many can see the parallel between the
> orthodox and the
> Arians in the current dispute between
> the orthodox and the revisionists.
Just as I can see certain parallels between
the ideology of the Nazi state and the
views of the "orthodox" about who is a
"real" Anglican. That doesn't mean the
situations are identical.
> If you believe we can learn nothing
> from history, that's your opinion,
I believe we can learn a tremendous amount
from the study of history. It's the subject
I have my academic degree in, and a subject
I still study. What I object to is the
*misuse* of history to further an agenda.
Every historian chooses a topic because he
sees a relevance to his own era, and to himself.
However, all history is selective and biased to
a degree, beginning with the data that survives
-- that was deliberately preserved, or destroyed,
or recorded with a certain selective bias. If you
had chosen an Arian historian, I suspect the
description of Athanasius would have been
rather different. So, while we believe there is
a certain objective truth to history ( or there
would be no point in studying it), we must not
confuse history as it has come down to us either
with Truth in an absolute sense, or with
Reality as it actually existed in time.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> >> <snip>
> > The dispute between the orthodox and the Arians
> > is well documented.
>
> No kidding. I'm familiar with it. The point is
> that in the areas where the Arian version of
> Christianity was accepted, it WAS orthodox as
> far as its members were concerned. Each
> religious group considers itself "orthodox"
> and it is not the place of the State to decide
> the issue. That is the worst and most dangerous
> form of tyranny over the souls of humanity.
> It is also unconstitutional in the U.S.
>
The fact is when the bishops voted at Nicea
there were only about two Arian bishops. The
Arians were the ones who went to the Emperors
and used state power to suppress the orthodox.
like Athanasius. If you support the Arians why not
join the Unitarians?
If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
is quite plain.
St. Athanasius, Letter Concerning the Councils of Rimini and
Seleucia (A.D. 361/362), Jurgens, para 785
[The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea], without prefixing
consulate, month, and day, wrote concerning Easter: "The following has
been decided." And it was at that time decided that all should comply.
But concerning matters of faith, they did not write: "It has been
decided," but "Thus the Catholic Church believes." And thereupon they
confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their
judgment was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic
times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
simply that which was taught by the Apostles.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/smc_rebut_refs.html
> <snip>
>
That's it erase the documentation
that shows you are wrong.
> >> History never repeats. That's what
> >> makes it history instead of science.
> >> Each historical event is unique, and
> >> one of the first things historians learn
> >> is not to make the mistake of thinking
> >> two historical events are the same.
> > "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> > CITES: George Santayana,
>
> ...but they never repeat it exactly.
>
Well it is 815 that is using state power to
throw the orthodox out just as the Arians
did to the orthodox in the fourth century.
> > Many can see the parallel between the
> > orthodox and the
> > Arians in the current dispute between
> > the orthodox and the revisionists.
>
> Just as I can see certain parallels between
> the ideology of the Nazi state and the
> views of the "orthodox" about who is a
> "real" Anglican. That doesn't mean the
> situations are identical.
>
Oh! The good old like Hitler canard.
The orthodox ask for alternative oversight
and you compare them to Hitler. Well, I
hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
> > If you believe we can learn nothing
> > from history, that's your opinion,
>
> I believe we can learn a tremendous amount
> from the study of history. It's the subject
> I have my academic degree in, and a subject
> I still study. What I object to is the
> *misuse* of history to further an agenda.
> Every historian chooses a topic because he
> sees a relevance to his own era, and to himself.
> However, all history is selective and biased to
> a degree, beginning with the data that survives
> -- that was deliberately preserved, or destroyed,
> or recorded with a certain selective bias. If you
> had chosen an Arian historian, I suspect the
> description of Athanasius would have been
> rather different. So, while we believe there is
> a certain objective truth to history ( or there
> would be no point in studying it), we must not
> confuse history as it has come down to us either
> with Truth in an absolute sense, or with
> Reality as it actually existed in time.
>
If you want the Arians become a Unitarian.
Your need to erase then make an assertion that needs
to be proven shows you are not using an empirical
basis for your historical view.
Again the Arians went to the Emperors after Nicea
and persecuted the othodox. The defeat of the Arian
Emperor Valens 378 A. D. by the Goths saved the
orthodox, and after 410 A.D. with the sack of Rome
the Empire was in pieces. The Goths, Vandels, and others
were mainly Arians. We still have parts of the famous
Gothic translation by Uphilas. Spain, North Africa,
and Northern Italy were controlled by Arians for many
years until it died out because people realized it was
not orthodox Christianity.
I suggest you read the series of the Church Fathers.
The Early Church Fathers, 38 Volumes
Edited By: Philip Schaff, Alexander Roberts
Hendrickson Publishers / 1994 / Hardcover
Broken into three sections, this authoritative collection of writings
by the Early Church Fathers is essential for understanding patristic
thought. Series I of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers consists of
eight volumes of the writings of St. Augustine, the greatest and most
influential of the early Fathers, as well as six volumes of the
treatises and homilies of St. Chrysostom. The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers Series II contains in fourteen volumes the works of the Greek
Fathers from Eusebius to John of Damascus and the Latin Fathers from
Hilary to Gregory the Great. The Ante-Nicene Fathers represent the
first primary sources of Christian history following the canon of the
New Testament, and include writings from the Apostolic Fathers as well
as various third and fourth century sources.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?
event=EFIN&item_no=30815&netp_id=133214#curr
Read the actual documents from the early
Christians, you might not agree with me, but
it is exciting history.
Jim
Nu 6:25 - The LORD make his face shine upon thee,
and be gracious unto thee:
Glorfindel
>>jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>> The dispute between the orthodox and the Arians
>>> is well documented.
>> No kidding. I'm familiar with it. The point is
>> that in the areas where the Arian version of
>> Christianity was accepted, it WAS orthodox as
>> far as its members were concerned. Each
>> religious group considers itself "orthodox"
>> and it is not the place of the State to decide
>> the issue. That is the worst and most dangerous
>> form of tyranny over the souls of humanity.
>> It is also unconstitutional in the U.S.
> The fact is when the bishops voted at Nicea
> there were only about two Arian bishops. The
> Arians were the ones who went to the Emperors
> and used state power to suppress the orthodox.
> like Athanasius.
So you agree using state power to enforce a
theological opinion is wrong?
> If you support the Arians why not
> join the Unitarians?
Who said I supported the Arians? I accept
the Nicene Creed, and the other creeds of
the catholic Church, and believe them.
However, I support the right of Arians or
ANY religious group -- even Baptists --
to worship free of State intervention in
their theological disputes.
> If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
> is quite plain.
I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
extraordinarily murky in spots.
> St. Athanasius, Letter Concerning the Councils of Rimini and
> Seleucia (A.D. 361/362), Jurgens, para 785
> [The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea], without prefixing
> consulate, month, and day, wrote concerning Easter: "The following has
> been decided." And it was at that time decided that all should comply.
> But concerning matters of faith, they did not write: "It has been
> decided," but "Thus the Catholic Church believes." And thereupon they
> confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their
> judgment was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic
> times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
> simply that which was taught by the Apostles.
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/smc_rebut_refs.html
>
>><snip>
> That's it erase the documentation
> that shows you are wrong.
Wrong about what exactly?
>>>> History never repeats. That's what
>>>> makes it history instead of science.
>>>> Each historical event is unique, and
>>>> one of the first things historians learn
>>>> is not to make the mistake of thinking
>>>> two historical events are the same.
>>> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
>>>CITES: George Santayana,
>> ...but they never repeat it exactly.
> Well it is 815 that is using state power to
> throw the orthodox out just as the Arians
> did to the orthodox in the fourth century.
No one has been "thrown out" as long as he is
willing to obey his ordination vows and obey
his bishop. Some have left voluntarily.
>>> Many can see the parallel between the
>>> orthodox and the
>>> Arians in the current dispute between
>>> the orthodox and the revisionists.
>> Just as I can see certain parallels between
>> the ideology of the Nazi state and the
>> views of the "orthodox" about who is a
>> "real" Anglican. That doesn't mean the
>> situations are identical.
> Oh! The good old like Hitler canard.
> The orthodox ask for alternative oversight
> and you compare them to Hitler.
No, I don't. I said that the Nazi legal
system declared that citizenship in the
German nation depended on subjective
ideological opinion (being a "good German"
and supporting the national ideology)
rather than objective fact, such as place
of birth or physical ancestry. I see a
parallel in the "orthodox" claim that membership
in the Episcopal church should depend on
ideological purity rather than attendance,
record of communicating, pledging, and so on,
and that secular legal claim to property
given to the church as an organization
should be decided on this basis.
Want what about the Arians? Are you
suggesting the State should exterminate Arians
or deny them civil rights?
> become a Unitarian.
> Your need to erase then make an assertion that needs
> to be proven shows you are not using an empirical
> basis for your historical view.
What do you disagree with about my statement above
concerning historical fact?
> Again the Arians went to the Emperors after Nicea
> and persecuted the othodox. The defeat of the Arian
> Emperor Valens 378 A. D. by the Goths saved the
> orthodox, and after 410 A.D. with the sack of Rome
> the Empire was in pieces. The Goths, Vandels, and others
> were mainly Arians.
If you wanted to claim a historical parallel, we might
see one between the evangelizing efforts of the
Arians in the client states of Rome among the _foederates_
on the Empire's fringes, and the evangelizing efforts
of the conservative Evangelicals in the areas controlled
by the British Empire. The Africans are revenging themselves
on the Anglo-Saxon imperialists as the Goths, Vandals, and
so on revenged themselves on the Roman imperialists. But,
as I say, no two historical parallels are exact.
> We still have parts of the famous
> Gothic translation by Uphilas. Spain, North Africa,
> and Northern Italy were controlled by Arians for many
> years until it died out because people realized it was
> not orthodox Christianity.
<snip>
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
> >>jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>> The dispute between the orthodox and the Arians
> >>> is well documented.
> >> No kidding. I'm familiar with it. The point is
> >> that in the areas where the Arian version of
> >> Christianity was accepted, it WAS orthodox as
> >> far as its members were concerned. Each
> >> religious group considers itself "orthodox"
> >> and it is not the place of the State to decide
> >> the issue. That is the worst and most dangerous
> >> form of tyranny over the souls of humanity.
> >> It is also unconstitutional in the U.S.
> > The fact is when the bishops voted at Nicea
> > there were only about two Arian bishops. The
> > Arians were the ones who went to the Emperors
> > and used state power to suppress the orthodox.
> > like Athanasius.
>
> So you agree using state power to enforce a
> theological opinion is wrong?
>
Yes,maybe you should tell
815 to stop doing it?
> > If you support the Arians why not
>
> > join the Unitarians?
>
> Who said I supported the Arians? I accept
> the Nicene Creed, and the other creeds of
> the catholic Church, and believe them.
>
You said the Arians were the orthodox
in their areas. Either the orthodox were right
or the Arians were. Which is it?
> However, I support the right of Arians or
> ANY religious group -- even Baptists --
> to worship free of State intervention in
> their theological disputes.
>
Since I was born and raised in Rhode
Island the first state to have religious
freedom for all people maybe you should
read the Book by Roger Williams to see
where your religious liberty comes from
The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed
And Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined And Answered (Paperback)
by Roger Williams (Author), Edward Bean Underhill (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Conscience-Discussed-Examined-
Answered/dp/1417949457
> > If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
> > is quite plain.
>
> I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
> Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
> extraordinarily murky in spots.
>
Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.
>
>
>
>
> > St. Athanasius, Letter Concerning the Councils of Rimini and
> > Seleucia (A.D. 361/362), Jurgens, para 785
> > [The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea], without prefixing
> > consulate, month, and day, wrote concerning Easter: "The following has
> > been decided." And it was at that time decided that all should comply.
> > But concerning matters of faith, they did not write: "It has been
> > decided," but "Thus the Catholic Church believes." And thereupon they
> > confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their
> > judgment was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic
> > times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
> > simply that which was taught by the Apostles.
> >http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/smc_rebut_refs.html
>
> >><snip>
> > That's it erase the documentation
> > that shows you are wrong.
>
> Wrong about what exactly?
>
That shows the vArians used state power
like some TEC bishops to throw the orthodox
out of the churches.
> >>>> History never repeats. That's what
> >>>> makes it history instead of science.
> >>>> Each historical event is unique, and
> >>>> one of the first things historians learn
> >>>> is not to make the mistake of thinking
> >>>> two historical events are the same.
> >>> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> >>>CITES: George Santayana,
> >> ...but they never repeat it exactly.
> > Well it is 815 that is using state power to
> > throw the orthodox out just as the Arians
> > did to the orthodox in the fourth century.
>
> No one has been "thrown out" as long as he is
> willing to obey his ordination vows and obey
> his bishop. Some have left voluntarily.
>
Fr. Sam Edwards was, and many were thrown out
without a trial. I guess you are against the right
of a trial for the orthodox?
Then you support alternative oversight?
>
>
>
>
> > hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
> > In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
No response. I guess you do
like empty buildings?
Of course not, but to you support
the right of the orthodox to be thrown out
of churches without trial?
You can join the Unitarian Church who
are honest modern Arians whom I respect.
> > become a Unitarian.
> > Your need to erase then make an assertion that needs
> > to be proven shows you are not using an empirical
> > basis for your historical view.
>
> What do you disagree with about my statement above
> concerning historical fact?
>
You seemed to say there was no difference
between the Arians and the orthodox. Both
were orthodox in their own way. A very relatistic
idea. I believe the orthodox were right and
the Arians wrong.
> > Again the Arians went to the Emperors after Nicea
> > and persecuted the othodox. The defeat of the Arian
> > Emperor Valens 378 A. D. by the Goths saved the
> > orthodox, and after 410 A.D. with the sack of Rome
> > the Empire was in pieces. The Goths, Vandels, and others
> > were mainly Arians.
>
> If you wanted to claim a historical parallel, we might
> see one between the evangelizing efforts of the
> Arians in the client states of Rome among the _foederates_
> on the Empire's fringes, and the evangelizing efforts
> of the conservative Evangelicals in the areas controlled
> by the British Empire. The Africans are revenging themselves
> on the Anglo-Saxon imperialists as the Goths, Vandals, and
> so on revenged themselves on the Roman imperialists. But,
> as I say, no two historical parallels are exact.
>
Yes, the ancient Arians did great Evangelizing
among the Goths which the orthodox recognized.
The modertn Arians have caused over one nillion
members in TEC to leave in the past 40 years.
As to your comment that the Africans are
revenging themselves on Anglo-Saxons is just
crazy. When someone asks for help and a
fellow Christian says I will help I thank them.
> > We still have parts of the famous
> > Gothic translation by Uphilas. Spain, North Africa,
> > and Northern Italy were controlled by Arians for many
> > years until it died out because people realized it was
> > not orthodox Christianity.
>
> <snip>-
What you erased
Why do you erase empirical data.
Maybe it proves you wrong?
Glorfindel
<snip>
>> So you agree using state power to enforce a
>> theological opinion is wrong?
> Yes,maybe you should tell
> 815 to stop doing it?
They are not. Those who disagree are free to leave
and set up their own groups and worship as they
please. What they aren't free to do is take
Episcopal church property with them.
>> > If you support the Arians why not
>>> join the Unitarians?
>> Who said I supported the Arians? I accept
>> the Nicene Creed, and the other creeds of
>> the catholic Church, and believe them.
> You said the Arians were the orthodox
> in their areas.
No, I said those who were Arians considered their
theology orthodox and the secular government
in the areas they controlled generally agreed.
> Either the orthodox were right
> or the Arians were. Which is it?
The only Person who can answer that
definitively is God. I believe what
I have been taught, but so did the
Arians.
>> However, I support the right of Arians or
>> ANY religious group -- even Baptists --
>> to worship free of State intervention in
>> their theological disputes.
> Since I was born and raised in Rhode
> Island the first state to have religious
> freedom for all people maybe you should
> read the Book by Roger Williams to see
> where your religious liberty comes from
That's not where *my* religious liberty comes from.
Mine comes from the U.S. Constitution.
> The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed
> And Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined And Answered (Paperback)
> by Roger Williams (Author), Edward Bean Underhill (Editor)
> http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Conscience-Discussed-Examined-
> Answered/dp/1417949457
>>> If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
>>> is quite plain.
>> I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
>> Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
>> extraordinarily murky in spots.
> Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
> with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in thine heart
> that God hath raised him from the dead,
> thou shalt be saved.
That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
"correct".
>>> St. Athanasius, Letter Concerning the Councils of Rimini and
>>>Seleucia (A.D. 361/362), Jurgens, para 785
>>>[The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea], without prefixing
>>>consulate, month, and day, wrote concerning Easter: "The following has
>>>been decided." And it was at that time decided that all should comply.
>>>But concerning matters of faith, they did not write: "It has been
>>>decided," but "Thus the Catholic Church believes." And thereupon they
>>>confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their
>>>judgment was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic
>>>times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is
>>>simply that which was taught by the Apostles.
>>>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/smc_rebut_refs.html
>>>><snip>
>>> That's it erase the documentation
>>> that shows you are wrong.
>> Wrong about what exactly?
> That shows the vArians used state power
> like some TEC bishops to throw the orthodox
> out of the churches.
Not "like" the Episcopal bishops -- the
political system was completely different.
"Orthodox" bishops also used state power
to "throw" Arians out of the Church. And
so with many groups considered "heretical"
at one time or another, in one place or
another. The tactic was universal in the
pre-modern world.
<snip>
> Then you support alternative oversight?
Only when approved by a parish's local bishop.
That is basic to the Anglican church structure.
>>> hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
>>> In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
> No response. I guess you do
> like empty buildings?
Sometimes. It depends on the building. :)
<snip>
> Of course not, but to you support
> the right of the orthodox to be thrown out
> of churches without trial?
> You can join the Unitarian Church who
> are honest modern Arians whom I respect.
I'm not an Arian, or a Unitarian. I'm an
Episcopalian.
>>> become a Unitarian.
>>> Your need to erase then make an assertion that needs
>>> to be proven shows you are not using an empirical
>>> basis for your historical view.
>> What do you disagree with about my statement above
>> concerning historical fact?
> You seemed to say there was no difference
> between the Arians and the orthodox. Both
> were orthodox in their own way.
Both considered themselves orthodox.
> A very relatistic
> idea. I believe the orthodox were right and
> the Arians wrong.
Bully for you. I *believe* so also, since that
is what I have been taught.
>>> Again the Arians went to the Emperors after Nicea
>>> and persecuted the othodox. The defeat of the Arian
>>> Emperor Valens 378 A. D. by the Goths saved the
>>> orthodox, and after 410 A.D. with the sack of Rome
>>> the Empire was in pieces. The Goths, Vandels, and others
>>> were mainly Arians.
>> If you wanted to claim a historical parallel, we might
>> see one between the evangelizing efforts of the
>> Arians in the client states of Rome among the _foederates_
>> on the Empire's fringes, and the evangelizing efforts
>> of the conservative Evangelicals in the areas controlled
>> by the British Empire. The Africans are revenging themselves
>> on the Anglo-Saxon imperialists as the Goths, Vandals, and
>> so on revenged themselves on the Roman imperialists. But,
>> as I say, no two historical parallels are exact.
> Yes, the ancient Arians did great Evangelizing
> among the Goths which the orthodox recognized.
...but did not accept as legitimate, or allow
religious freedom in areas where the secular state
was controlled by Trinitarian bishops.
> The modertn Arians have caused over one nillion
> members in TEC to leave in the past 40 years.
There are no modern Arians, at least in the West,
and certainly not in the Episcopal church..
> As to your comment that the Africans are
> revenging themselves on Anglo-Saxons is just
> crazy. When someone asks for help and a
> fellow Christian says I will help I thank them.
<snip>
LOL! As I said, historical parallels are never
exact, but this one has a lot of things in common.
If the English hadn't gone in to colonize Africa --
or America -- this conflict probably wouldn't
exist. The tribes on the fringes of the Roman
state didn't want to destroy Rome, or destroy the
"orthodox" church -- they wanted to participate
and be a part of Roman civilization and members of
the "true" Church. There's no one more fanatical
than a convert rejecting his own native culture.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 3:48 pm, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> So you agree using state power to enforce a
> >> theological opinion is wrong?
> > Yes,maybe you should tell
> > 815 to stop doing it?
>
> They are not. Those who disagree are free to leave
> and set up their own groups and worship as they
> please. What they aren't free to do is take
> Episcopal church property with them.
>
others were thrown out without a trial.
Do you believe in the right of a trial
for the orthodox? Yes or no?
> >> > If you support the Arians why not
> >>> join the Unitarians?
> >> Who said I supported the Arians? I accept
> >> the Nicene Creed, and the other creeds of
> >> the catholic Church, and believe them.
> > You said the Arians were the orthodox
> > in their areas.
>
> No, I said those who were Arians considered their
> theology orthodox and the secular government
> in the areas they controlled generally agreed.
>
Islamic terrorists consider their theology
orthodox, they consider Jesus a muslim.
Do you defend the Faith or don't you?
Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints.
> > Either the orthodox were right
> > or the Arians were. Which is it?
>
> The only Person who can answer that
> definitively is God. I believe what
> I have been taught, but so did the
> Arians.
>
So what ever you have been taught is correct?
Thank God you weren't taught that 2 + 2 = 5.
1Pe 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the
hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
> >> However, I support the right of Arians or
> >> ANY religious group -- even Baptists --
> >> to worship free of State intervention in
> >> their theological disputes.
> > Since I was born and raised in Rhode
> > Island the first state to have religious
> > freedom for all people maybe you should
> > read the Book by Roger Williams to see
> > where your religious liberty comes from
>
> That's not where *my* religious liberty comes from.
> Mine comes from the U.S. Constitution.
>
Where do you think the writers of the Constitution
got their ideas from? RI refused to ratify the Constitution
until the Bill of Rights was passed. Again you reject
empirical facts.
Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644).
on the Bible and founded Rhode Island the first
state with religious freedom for all. Rhode Island was
one of the states that refused to ratify the Constitution
until the Bill of Rights was passed.
For centuries Protestants have found a convenient division between
the
first and second tables of the ten-commandment law. Roger Williams,
the
founder of Rhode Island, was the first American to associate two
concepts: the separation of church and state and the two tables of
the
law. It was Williams, not Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase
about
a hedge, or wall, separating the garden of the church from the
wilderness of the state.
Williams also conceived that the first four commandments, or the
first
table of the law, addressed one's obligations to worship God, while
the
last six commandments, the second table, addressed one's civil
obligations. The American Protestant concept of separation of church
and state was largely built on this distinction. Thus state law could
properly address moral issues such as adultery, stealing, and murder
because these were in the second table of the law.
However, Puritan era "first table" laws against blasphemy, idolatry,
and even Sunday laws fell into disfavor, not merely because of
secular
trends, but because in the Protestant conception, these obligations
pertained not to the state but to God alone.
This division between the first and second tables of the law roughly
corresponds to the distinction between legislating religion and
morality. Under the First Amendment, the state has not jurisdiction
to
address essentially religious questions, such as when, where, how, or
whom to worship. The first table of the law is out of bounds to the
state. However, the second table of the law has always been the
subject
of civil law, despite the familiar adage that "you can't legislate
morality." Actually, you can, and we do. The debate is never really
about whether to legislate morality, but to what extent and from what
source.
Under the American constitutional system, the state has no charge to
order public morality according to the second table of the
ten-commandment law, but neither is the state compelled to reject the
second table. It is entirely legitimate for Americans to invoke the
commandments in public policy debate, so long as the distinction
between the first and second tables is observed. The Constitution
does
not permit the state to arbitrate religious belief and practice or to
promote specific religious ideas. This means that the same Ten
Commandments that many Americans look to for the content of public
morality may be subject to constitutional restrictions when it comes
to
state efforts to publicly display and honor them. Although many view
restricting the display of the commandments as official disrespect,
it
is far better for government to maintain a strict "hands-off" policy
with respect to religion than to open a Pandora's box of public
promotion of religion.
____________
Alan J. Reinach serves as vice-president of the North American
Religious Liberty Association West, which has published "Written in
the
Heart," a guide and poster regarding the Ten Commandments, available
at
www.religiousliberty.info.
________________________
> > The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed
> > And Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined And Answered (Paperback)
> > by Roger Williams (Author), Edward Bean Underhill (Editor)
> > http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Conscience-Discussed-Examined-
> > Answered/dp/1417949457
> >>> If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
> >>> is quite plain.
> >> I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
> >> Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
> >> extraordinarily murky in spots.
> > Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
> > with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> > and shalt believe in thine heart
> > that God hath raised him from the dead,
> > thou shalt be saved.
>
> That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
> those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
> people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
> "correct".
>
Only Jesus is correct, but that is the standard
for orthodox Christianity.
Both the Arians and some Episcopal bishops
used state power to throw out orthodox priests.
In the fourth century it was the Arians who used state
power. The Arian heresy just died out in Spain,
North Africa, and Northern Italy as people realized
it was not orthodox Christianity. remember after 410 A.D. the
Roman Empire was in pieces.
> <snip>
>
> > Then you support alternative oversight?
>
> Only when approved by a parish's local bishop.
> That is basic to the Anglican church structure.
>
That my way or the highway view
has caused over one million members
to vote with their feet and leave in the
past 40 years.
> >>> hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
> >>> In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
> > No response. I guess you do
> > like empty buildings?
>
> Sometimes. It depends on the building. :)
>
An empty building is better than one full
of people who disagree with you?
> <snip>
>
There you go again erasing evidence
you can't deal with.
> > Of course not, but to you support
> > the right of the orthodox to be thrown out
> > of churches without trial?
No, response so I shall assume you
don't believe in a trial for the orthodox.
> > You can join the Unitarian Church who
> > are honest modern Arians whom I respect.
>
> I'm not an Arian, or a Unitarian. I'm an
> Episcopalian.
>
Of course, the Unitarians respect
the right of freedom of Conscience in their
churches.
> >>> become a Unitarian.
> >>> Your need to erase then make an assertion that needs
> >>> to be proven shows you are not using an empirical
> >>> basis for your historical view.
> >> What do you disagree with about my statement above
> >> concerning historical fact?
> > You seemed to say there was no difference
> > between the Arians and the orthodox. Both
> > were orthodox in their own way.
>
> Both considered themselves orthodox.
>
So do Islamic terrorists.
1Pe 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be
ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason
of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
> > A very relatistic
> > idea. I believe the orthodox were right and
> > the Arians wrong.
>
> Bully for you. I *believe* so also, since that
> is what I have been taught.
>
So you can give no reason why the orthodox
are right? Glad you weren't taught 2 + 2 = 5,
or maybe you were.
>
>
>
>
> >>> Again the Arians went to the Emperors after Nicea
> >>> and persecuted the othodox. The defeat of the Arian
> >>> Emperor Valens 378 A. D. by the Goths saved the
> >>> orthodox, and after 410 A.D. with the sack of Rome
> >>> the Empire was in pieces. The Goths, Vandels, and others
> >>> were mainly Arians.
> >> If you wanted to claim a historical parallel, we might
> >> see one between the evangelizing efforts of the
> >> Arians in the client states of Rome among the _foederates_
> >> on the Empire's fringes, and the evangelizing efforts
> >> of the conservative Evangelicals in the areas controlled
> >> by the British Empire. The Africans are revenging themselves
> >> on the Anglo-Saxon imperialists as the Goths, Vandals, and
> >> so on revenged themselves on the Roman imperialists. But,
> >> as I say, no two historical parallels are exact.
> > Yes, the ancient Arians did great Evangelizing
> > among the Goths which the orthodox recognized.
>
> ...but did not accept as legitimate, or allow
> religious freedom in areas where the secular state
> was controlled by Trinitarian bishops.
>
Athanasius was asked to allow Arians
to have churches in Egypt, and he asswered yes
but the orthodox should be allowed in Antioch.
The Arian bishops like 815 said no.
History refutes you, Roger Williams a Puritan
was the one who argued for religious liberty
foe all. FYI - I have heard C. of E. priests quote him.
I am surprised you don't know who he is.
What college did you go to, so I can tell my
grand children not to go there.
> > The modertn Arians have caused over one nillion
> > members in TEC to leave in the past 40 years.
>
> There are no modern Arians, at least in the West,
> and certainly not in the Episcopal church..
>
Spong and Pike for starters. I already showed
an article on it which of course you erased.
> > As to your comment that the Africans are
> > revenging themselves on Anglo-Saxons is just
> > crazy. When someone asks for help and a
> > fellow Christian says I will help I thank them.
>
> <snip>
>
There you go again erasing evidence
you can't refute.
> LOL! As I said, historical parallels are never
> exact, but this one has a lot of things in common.
>
Yes, the Arians and some in TEC which I
documented, and you erased.
> If the English hadn't gone in to colonize Africa --
> or America -- this conflict probably wouldn't
> exist. The tribes on the fringes of the Roman
> state didn't want to destroy Rome, or destroy the
> "orthodox" church -- they wanted to participate
> and be a part of Roman civilization and members of
> the "true" Church. There's no one more fanatical
> than a convert rejecting his own native culture
Christianity, has been in Africa since the first century,
(e.g. Church of Egypt(i.e. Coptic), and Church of
Ethiopia), the Church of North Africa whose bishop
Cyprian of Carthage said the bishop of Rome was outside
the Catholic Church was destroyed by the muslims in 646 A.D.
There was the Celtic Church of Eupope destroyed by
the Germanic Anglo-Saxons with the support of Rome.
Read the Venerable Bede for documentation.
Power was always used to try to destroy the pilgrim
church, but the gates of hell have never prevailed against it.
As Lord Acton said about his Roman Church, "power corrupts,
absilute power corrupts absolutly".
Glorfindel
I still have no idea why you consider me a non-Trinitarian.
I believe the doctrines of the Nicene Creed, which is one
basic creed of the Episcopal church. One cannot be an
Episcopalian without accepting the Nicene Creed.
I think you may be confusing secular tactics carried out
by government ( falsely in this case ) with theological
doctrine. There is absolutely no similarity between the
actions of the Episcopal church in the recent controversy
and the actions of the Arian bishops. The relationship
of various churches in the U.S. today is completely unlike
the relationship between the Roman imperial government
and the various Christian churches of that period.
more later
<snip>
Glorfindel
>>jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>>>On Feb 14, 3:48 pm, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> So you agree using state power to enforce a
>>>> theological opinion is wrong?
>>> Yes,maybe you should tell
>>> 815 to stop doing it?
>> They are not. Those who disagree are free to leave
>> and set up their own groups and worship as they
>> please. What they aren't free to do is take
>> Episcopal church property with them.
> Fr. sam Edwards was thrown out and
> others were thrown out without a trial.
> Do you believe in the right of a trial
> for the orthodox? Yes or no?
Trial for what? In what court?
<snip>
>>> You said the Arians were the orthodox
>>> in their areas.
>> No, I said those who were Arians considered their
>> theology orthodox and the secular government
>> in the areas they controlled generally agreed.
> Islamic terrorists consider their theology
> orthodox, they consider Jesus a muslim.
No, as I understand it, they consider Jesus a prophet,
like other Biblical prophets, but not God.
> Do you defend the Faith or don't you?
Defend it how?
>>>Either the orthodox were right
>>> or the Arians were. Which is it?
>> The only Person who can answer that
>> definitively is God. I believe what
>> I have been taught, but so did the
>> Arians.
> So what ever you have been taught is correct?
I believe so, but that is all we can do: accept it on
faith.
> Thank God you weren't taught that 2 + 2 = 5.
That is something which can be objectively proved.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not.
>>> Since I was born and raised in Rhode
>>> Island the first state to have religious
>>> freedom for all people maybe you should
>>> read the Book by Roger Williams to see
>>> where your religious liberty comes from
>> That's not where *my* religious liberty comes from.
>> Mine comes from the U.S. Constitution.
> Where do you think the writers of the Constitution
> got their ideas from?
From a wide variety of thinkers in various eras.
Jefferson, for example, was strongly influenced
by the French philosophes like Voltaire, and
many people advanced ideas about religious liberty,
even in England, long before Roger Williams.
> RI refused to ratify the Constitution
> until the Bill of Rights was passed. Again you reject
> empirical facts.
<snip>
>>>>> If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
>>>>> is quite plain.
>>>> I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
>>>> Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
>>>> extraordinarily murky in spots.
>>> Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
>>> with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
>>> and shalt believe in thine heart
>>> that God hath raised him from the dead,
>>> thou shalt be saved.
>> That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
>> those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
>> people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
>> "correct".
> Only Jesus is correct, but that is the standard
> for orthodox Christianity.
O.K. -- how have the supporters of Robinson not followed
this?
<snip>
>>> Then you support alternative oversight?
>> Only when approved by a parish's local bishop.
>> That is basic to the Anglican church structure.
> That my way or the highway view
> has caused over one million members
> to vote with their feet and leave in the
> past 40 years.
Respecting the authority of the local bishop is the
basic foundation of the *Episcopal* form of church
government. The Archbishop of Canterbury just
reiterated this at the meeting in Africa.
>>>>> hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
>>>>> In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
>>> No response. I guess you do
>>> like empty buildings?
>
>> Sometimes. It depends on the building. :)
> An empty building is better than one full
> of people who disagree with you?
No, why? An interesting historical building which
is empty is better than one which has been torn down
and disappeared.
<snip>
>>> A very relatistic
>>> idea. I believe the orthodox were right and
>>> the Arians wrong.
>> Bully for you. I *believe* so also, since that
>> is what I have been taught.
> So you can give no reason why the orthodox
> are right?
The primary reason I believe the Trinitarians are
right is that the catholic Church says so. But
you would have a hard time proving it from anything
specific in the Bible. The terminology comes
from Greek philosophical categories of the late
classical period, not from Hebrew thought (which
rejects the idea ) or from the New Testament itself.
There were at least three strands of Arianism, and
some Arians were accepted back into the Catholic
church later. There is no way to prove the doctrine
of the Trinity empirically.
<snip>
> History refutes you, Roger Williams a Puritan
> was the one who argued for religious liberty
He was one, but not "the" (only) one.
> foe all. FYI - I have heard C. of E. priests quote him.
> I am surprised you don't know who he is.
Of course I know who he was, but I don't give him
the same pride of place you do in the history of
church/state relations in the U.S.
<snip>
>> There are no modern Arians, at least in the West,
>> and certainly not in the Episcopal church..
>>
> Spong and Pike for starters. I already showed
> an article on it which of course you erased.
I don't notice Spong having any particular influence
on the current controversy in Africa, and Pike ( we may
assume ) is dead. I don't think Spong rejects the
concept of the Trinity _per se_; I believe he thinks it
is metaphorical, rather than literal.
<snip>
>> If the English hadn't gone in to colonize Africa --
>> or America -- this conflict probably wouldn't
>> exist. The tribes on the fringes of the Roman
>> state didn't want to destroy Rome, or destroy the
>> "orthodox" church -- they wanted to participate
>> and be a part of Roman civilization and members of
>> the "true" Church. There's no one more fanatical
>> than a convert rejecting his own native culture
> Christianity, has been in Africa since the first century,
The English branch in Nigeria?
Yes, there was a Christian church in the areas
controlled by the Roman Empire in North Africa, and
in some other areas like Ethiopia, but those churches
were not part of the Anglican communion.
> (e.g. Church of Egypt(i.e. Coptic), and Church of
> Ethiopia), the Church of North Africa whose bishop
> Cyprian of Carthage said the bishop of Rome was outside
> the Catholic Church was destroyed by the muslims in 646 A.D.
> There was the Celtic Church of Eupope destroyed by
> the Germanic Anglo-Saxons with the support of Rome.
Er...not quite. The Celtic church was cut off from the
rest of Western Christianity by the invasion of the
pagan Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but survived in Ireland
and some continental enclaves such as Brittany. When
Augustine was sent to south England, and the Roman
church slowly expanded northward, it eventually came
into conflict with the Celtic church over certain
matters such as forms of ecclesiastical organization,
tonsure, date of Easter, position of women in the church,
and some other things. This was decided at the Synod
of Whitby in favor of Rome, but elements of the Celtic
belief remained in popular religion, especially in
Ireland.
> Read the Venerable Bede for documentation.
I have.
<snip>
> Power was always used to try to destroy the pilgrim
> church, but the gates of hell have never prevailed against it.
> As Lord Acton said about his Roman Church, "power corrupts,
> absilute power corrupts absolutly".
That wasn't just about the Roman church. That was general
observation on politics.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> I still have no idea why you consider me a non-Trinitarian.
> I believe the doctrines of the Nicene Creed, which is one
> basic creed of the Episcopal church. One cannot be an
> Episcopalian without accepting the Nicene Creed.
>
thinks they are orthodox is a typically post modern statement.
The question is how many consider it historical and how
many consider it myth. If you consider it historical
please give your reasons for doing so?
1Pe 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the
hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
> I think you may be confusing secular tactics carried out
> by government ( falsely in this case ) with theological
> doctrine. There is absolutely no similarity between the
> actions of the Episcopal church in the recent controversy
> and the actions of the Arian bishops. The relationship
> of various churches in the U.S. today is completely unlike
> the relationship between the Roman imperial government
> and the various Christian churches of that period.
>
Both the Arian bishops and revisionist TEC bishops
have used state power to throw the orthodox out of
the churches. That is a fact. They both believed they
were justified but the fact remains.
> more later
>
You never answered do you believe the orthodox
should receive a trial before being throw out?
I know you would demand it for Al Queda
terrorists.
> <snip>
Erasing evidence you can't deal with
again?
Jim
Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
> >>jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> >>>On Feb 14, 3:48 pm, Glorfindel <notgi...@all.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>> So you agree using state power to enforce a
> >>>> theological opinion is wrong?
> >>> Yes,maybe you should tell
> >>> 815 to stop doing it?
> >> They are not. Those who disagree are free to leave
> >> and set up their own groups and worship as they
> >> please. What they aren't free to do is take
> >> Episcopal church property with them.
> > Fr. sam Edwards was thrown out and
> > others were thrown out without a trial.
> > Do you believe in the right of a trial
> > for the orthodox? Yes or no?
>
> Trial for what? In what court?
>
> <snip>
>
Erasing evidence you can't refute
again?
> >>> You said the Arians were the orthodox
> >>> in their areas.
> >> No, I said those who were Arians considered their
> >> theology orthodox and the secular government
> >> in the areas they controlled generally agreed.
> > Islamic terrorists consider their theology
> > orthodox, they consider Jesus a muslim.
>
> No, as I understand it, they consider Jesus a prophet,
> like other Biblical prophets, but not God.
>
They considered Jesus a created "god"
who was created in time, not begotten
from eternity.
> > Do you defend the Faith or don't you?
>
> Defend it how?
>
Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
> >>>Either the orthodox were right
> >>> or the Arians were. Which is it?
> >> The only Person who can answer that
> >> definitively is God. I believe what
> >> I have been taught, but so did the
> >> Arians.
> > So what ever you have been taught is correct?
>
> I believe so, but that is all we can do: accept it on
> faith.
>
The whole of apolgetics is to
give reasons for the Faith.
Have you never heard of Thomas
Aquinas?
> > Thank God you weren't taught that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> That is something which can be objectively proved.
Oh! 2 = 2 = 5? I was taught 4.
> The doctrine of the Trinity is not.
>
The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice three persons, one Lord
Patrick of Ireland used the three
leaf clover
Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints.
> >>> Since I was born and raised in Rhode
> >>> Island the first state to have religious
> >>> freedom for all people maybe you should
> >>> read the Book by Roger Williams to see
> >>> where your religious liberty comes from
> >> That's not where *my* religious liberty comes from.
> >> Mine comes from the U.S. Constitution.
> > Where do you think the writers of the Constitution
> > got their ideas from?
>
> From a wide variety of thinkers in various eras.
> Jefferson, for example, was strongly influenced
> by the French philosophes like Voltaire, and
> many people advanced ideas about religious liberty,
> even in England, long before Roger Williams.
>
Williams published in London 1644 A.D.
Mt 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
God the things that are God's.
Jesus first centurd A.D.
> > RI refused to ratify the Constitution
> > until the Bill of Rights was passed. Again you reject
> > empirical facts.
>
> <snip>
>
You prove my point by erasing empirical
data.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> If you claim to be "catholic" the orthodox Faith
> >>>>> is quite plain.
> >>>> I am Catholic. However, I question whether the
> >>>> Faith is "quite plain." In fact, it is
> >>>> extraordinarily murky in spots.
> >>> Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
> >>> with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> >>> and shalt believe in thine heart
> >>> that God hath raised him from the dead,
> >>> thou shalt be saved.
> >> That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
> >> those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
> >> people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
> >> "correct".
> > Only Jesus is correct, but that is the standard
> > for orthodox Christianity.
>
> O.K. -- how have the supporters of Robinson not followed
> this?
>
I don't see them proclaiming it
from the roof tops.
Mt 10:27 - What I tell you in darkness,
that speak ye in light:
and what ye hear in the ear,
that preach ye upon the housetops.
> <snip>
>
Erasing evidence you can't
refute again?
> >>> Then you support alternative oversight?
> >> Only when approved by a parish's local bishop.
> >> That is basic to the Anglican church structure.
> > That my way or the highway view
> > has caused over one million members
> > to vote with their feet and leave in the
> > past 40 years.
>
> Respecting the authority of the local bishop is the
> basic foundation of the *Episcopal* form of church
> government. The Archbishop of Canterbury just
> reiterated this at the meeting in Africa.
>
If you don't understand the difference
between an obediance of love and one
of force, I am sorry, but enjoy your
empty buildings.
> >>>>> hope you enjoy all those empty buildings.
> >>>>> In NYc one was turned into a disco(i.e. the Limelight)
> >>> No response. I guess you do
> >>> like empty buildings?
>
> >> Sometimes. It depends on the building. :)
> > An empty building is better than one full
> > of people who disagree with you?
>
> No, why? An interesting historical building which
> is empty is better than one which has been torn down
> and disappeared.
>
A living church is better than
a dead one.
> <snip>
>
Erasing evidence you can't refute
again?
> >>> A very relatistic
> >>> idea. I believe the orthodox were right and
> >>> the Arians wrong.
> >> Bully for you. I *believe* so also, since that
> >> is what I have been taught.
> > So you can give no reason why the orthodox
> > are right?
>
> The primary reason I believe the Trinitarians are
> right is that the catholic Church says so. But
> you would have a hard time proving it from anything
> specific in the Bible. The terminology comes
> from Greek philosophical categories of the late
> classical period, not from Hebrew thought (which
> rejects the idea ) or from the New Testament itself.
> There were at least three strands of Arianism, and
> some Arians were accepted back into the Catholic
> church later. There is no way to prove the doctrine
> of the Trinity empirically.
>
The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice three persons, one Lord
> <snip>
>
Erasing evidence you can't
refute again?
> > History refutes you, Roger Williams a Puritan
> > was the one who argued for religious liberty
>
> He was one, but not "the" (only) one.
>
Also Jesus first century A.D.
Lu 20:25 - And he said unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's,
and unto God the things which be God's.
> > foe all. FYI - I have heard C. of E. priests quote him.
> > I am surprised you don't know who he is.
>
> Of course I know who he was, but I don't give him
> the same pride of place you do in the history of
> church/state relations in the U.S.
>
Of course not, he was an orthodoc Christian.
> <snip>
>
Erasing data you can't
refute again?
> >> There are no modern Arians, at least in the West,
> >> and certainly not in the Episcopal church..
>
> > Spong and Pike for starters. I already showed
> > an article on it which of course you erased.
>
> I don't notice Spong having any particular influence
> on the current controversy in Africa, and Pike ( we may
> assume ) is dead. I don't think Spong rejects the
> concept of the Trinity _per se_; I believe he thinks it
> is metaphorical, rather than literal.
>
We notice what side he is on.
Believing the Creed is myth, in most
people's mind means he doesn't believe it.
The neo-orthodox can accept all
of the Apostle's Creed except
under Pontius Pilate - Paul VI of Rome
> <snip>
>
Erasing data you can't refute
again?
> >> If the English hadn't gone in to colonize Africa --
> >> or America -- this conflict probably wouldn't
> >> exist. The tribes on the fringes of the Roman
> >> state didn't want to destroy Rome, or destroy the
> >> "orthodox" church -- they wanted to participate
> >> and be a part of Roman civilization and members of
> >> the "true" Church. There's no one more fanatical
> >> than a convert rejecting his own native culture
> > Christianity, has been in Africa since the first century,
>
> The English branch in Nigeria?
>
> Yes, there was a Christian church in the areas
> controlled by the Roman Empire in North Africa, and
> in some other areas like Ethiopia, but those churches
> were not part of the Anglican communion.
>
The Coptic and Ethiopian churches stll aren't.
The Coptic Church was once allowed to use
the altar at GTS. They purified it before the
service. Told to me by a graduate of GTS.
> > (e.g. Church of Egypt(i.e. Coptic), and Church of
> > Ethiopia), the Church of North Africa whose bishop
> > Cyprian of Carthage said the bishop of Rome was outside
> > the Catholic Church was destroyed by the muslims in 646 A.D.
> > There was the Celtic Church of Eupope destroyed by
> > the Germanic Anglo-Saxons with the support of Rome.
>
> Er...not quite. The Celtic church was cut off from the
> rest of Western Christianity by the invasion of the
> pagan Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, but survived in Ireland
> and some continental enclaves such as Brittany. When
> Augustine was sent to south England, and the Roman
> church slowly expanded northward, it eventually came
> into conflict with the Celtic church over certain
> matters such as forms of ecclesiastical organization,
> tonsure, date of Easter, position of women in the church,
> and some other things. This was decided at the Synod
> of Whitby in favor of Rome, but elements of the Celtic
> belief remained in popular religion, especially in
> Ireland.
>
They had succesion from the Apostle John.
Irenaeus of Lyons,
I shall quote the great Irish Saint Columbanus in his
letter to POPE BONIFACE IV
"It is not vanity, but grief, that compels me, a mere dwarf, of
the meanest rank, to write to such lofty personages, seeing that the
name of God is blasphemed among the nations, through you contending
with one another. For I do grieve, I confess, for the infamy of the
chair of St. Peter. . . . The storm threatens the wreck of the ship of
the church; and hence it is that I, a timid sailor, cry out, 'Keep
watch, for the water has already made its entrance into the vessel,
and the ship is in jeopardy. For we are the disciples of Saints Peter
and Paul, and of all those their disciples, who by the Holy Ghost have
written the divine canon. Yes, we, the whole body of the Irish, who
are inhibitors of the ends of the world, and receive nothing beyond
the teaching of the evangelists and the apostles. There has never been
amongst us any heretic, any Judaizer, any schismatic; but the catholic
faith has been held unshaken by us, as it was first delivered to us by
you, the successors, to be sure, of the holy apostles.... Therefore
that thou mayest not be deprived of apostolic honour, preserve the
apostolic faith, [2] confirm it by testimony, strengthen it by
writing, fortify it by synod, to the end that none may justly resist
thee. Despise not the poor advice of a stranger, as being a teacher of
one who is zealous for thy sake. The world is now drawing to an end;
THE PRINCE OF PASTORS [3] is approaching; beware lest he find thee
remiss and negligent, both beating thy fellowservants with the blows
of an evil example, and eating and drinking with Hebrews; lest what
follows (in that place of Scripture) befall thee, as the consequence
of thy security. 'For he who is ignorant shall be ignorant' (1 Cor.
xiv. 38). Watch, therefore, I pray thee, O pope; watch, and again I
say watch, because, doubtless, Vigilius did not keep Vigil, [4] whom
those who throw blame upon thee cry out to be the HEAD OF THE
SCANDAL."
http://www.reformation.org/vol2ch27.html
> > Read the Venerable Bede for documentation.
>
> I have.
>
Did you read where Augustine of Canterbury
refused to stand for the Celtic bishops, and
the murder of Celtic monks at prayer?
> <snip>
>
Erasing data you can't refute
again?
> > Power was always used to try to destroy the pilgrim
> > church, but the gates of hell have never prevailed against it.
> > As Lord Acton said about his Roman Church, "power corrupts,
> > absilute power corrupts absolutly".
>
> That wasn't just about the Roman church. That was general
> observation on politics
Then it would fit TEC bishops
who want unchecked power.
Jim
The only heresy in TEC,
is orthodoxy
Glorfindel
I notice you like to quote large blocks of material
from various early authors, but you don't seem to
be able to understand this material in its
historical context. Most of the time, the quotes
have very little to do with the point you are
trying to make.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>>> Do you believe in the right of a trial
>>> for the orthodox? Yes or no?
>> Trial for what? In what court?
> A church court.
O.K., a church court. On what basis? What
canon supports a breakaway parish which
refuses canonical obedience to its bishop
taking away Episcopal church property?
As you'll note, the Righter trial -- in a
church court -- determined that ordaining
a non-celibate gay clergyperson was
not in violation of church doctrine or
canon. So, if that is the reason these
parishes are removing Episcopal property,
they are clearly in violation of existing
ruling in church court.
<snip>
>>> Islamic terrorists consider their theology
>>> orthodox, they consider Jesus a muslim.
>> No, as I understand it, they consider Jesus a prophet,
>> like other Biblical prophets, but not God.
>>
>> They considered Jesus a created "god"
> who was created in time, not begotten
> from eternity.
AFAIK, the Muslims do not believe Jesus is a
god of any kind, but they do consider him
a great prophet.
>>>>>Either the orthodox were right
>>>>> or the Arians were. Which is it?
>>>> The only Person who can answer that
>>>> definitively is God. I believe what
>>>> I have been taught, but so did the
>>>> Arians.
>>> So what ever you have been taught is correct?
>> I believe so, but that is all we can do: accept it on
>> faith.
> The whole of apolgetics is to
> give reasons for the Faith.
> Have you never heard of Thomas
Aquinas?
*sigh* yes. Do you accept
Scholastic apologetics? You
do realize quite a bit of it
was based on Aristotle, don't you?
<snip>
> The doctrine of the Trinity is not.
>
> The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
>
Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
> door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
> pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
> Notice three persons, one Lord
That certainly doesn't "prove" the doctrine of the Trinity
as affirmed by the Nicene Creed.
> Patrick of Ireland used the three
> leaf clover
Yes, as a teaching aid -- but only because he believed
in the Trinity from the Creed. A shamrock doesn't
prove the doctrine of the Trinity.
<snip>
> Mt 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
> Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
> God the things that are God's.
> Jesus first centurd A.D.
This says nothing specific about *what* is Caesar's or
what relationship organized religion has to state control.
Jesus was talking about giving tax money to the Roman
government. The Roman government was reasonably tolerant
about freedom of religion in its empire. Its main
problem with the Jews was secular insurrections. You'll
note Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus and said he did
not see what harm Jesus had done. The Jewish authorities
persuaded the Romans to crucify Jesus by convincing them
Jesus's followers represented a political threat to the
political authority of Caesar.
<snip>
>>>>> Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
>>>>> with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
>>>>> and shalt believe in thine heart
>>>>> that God hath raised him from the dead,
>>>>> thou shalt be saved.
>>>> That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
>>>> those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
>>>> people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
>>>> "correct".
>>> Only Jesus is correct, but that is the standard
>>> for orthodox Christianity.
>> O.K. -- how have the supporters of Robinson not followed
>> this?
> I don't see them proclaiming it
> from the roof tops.
I could make a joke here -- but, seriously, what more do
you want them to do than they are doing?
<snip>
>> Respecting the authority of the local bishop is the
>> basic foundation of the *Episcopal* form of church
>> government. The Archbishop of Canterbury just
>> reiterated this at the meeting in Africa.
> If you don't understand the difference
> between an obediance of love and one
> of force, I am sorry, but enjoy your
> empty buildings.
I understand an obedience to vows one has
willingly taken. If the individuals involved
don't want to obey, they are free to leave.
No one is forcing them to stay. They just
have to leave church property behind if they go.
<snip>
>>
>> The primary reason I believe the Trinitarians are
>> right is that the catholic Church says so. But
>> you would have a hard time proving it from anything
>> specific in the Bible. The terminology comes
>> from Greek philosophical categories of the late
>> classical period, not from Hebrew thought (which
>> rejects the idea ) or from the New Testament itself.
>> There were at least three strands of Arianism, and
>> some Arians were accepted back into the Catholic
>> church later. There is no way to prove the doctrine
>> of the Trinity empirically.
> The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
> Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
> door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
> Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
> pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
see above.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> I notice you like to quote large blocks of material
> from various early authors, but you don't seem to
> be able to understand this material in its
> historical context. Most of the time, the quotes
> have very little to do with the point you are
> trying to make.
>
make an assertion that must be proven.
Your need to snip shows you can't refute
my documentation.
> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> >>> Do you believe in the right of a trial
> >>> for the orthodox? Yes or no?
> >> Trial for what? In what court?
> > A church court.
>
> O.K., a church court. On what basis? What
> canon supports a breakaway parish which
> refuses canonical obedience to its bishop
> taking away Episcopal church property?
>
Murderers are given a trial, so why
are you against the orthodox
receiving a trial?
> As you'll note, the Righter trial -- in a
> church court -- determined that ordaining
> a non-celibate gay clergyperson was
> not in violation of church doctrine or
> canon. So, if that is the reason these
> parishes are removing Episcopal property,
> they are clearly in violation of existing
> ruling in church court.
>
Then you should have no
problem with giving them a trial?
> <snip>
>
Erasing what you can't
refute again?
> >>> Islamic terrorists consider their theology
> >>> orthodox, they consider Jesus a muslim.
> >> No, as I understand it, they consider Jesus a prophet,
> >> like other Biblical prophets, but not God.
>
OK! A muslim prophet.
> >> They considered Jesus a created "god"
> > who was created in time, not begotten
> > from eternity.
>
> AFAIK, the Muslims do not believe Jesus is a
> god of any kind, but they do consider him
> a great prophet.
>
I was talking about the Arians.
> >>>>>Either the orthodox were right
> >>>>> or the Arians were. Which is it?
> >>>> The only Person who can answer that
> >>>> definitively is God. I believe what
> >>>> I have been taught, but so did the
> >>>> Arians.
> >>> So what ever you have been taught is correct?
> >> I believe so, but that is all we can do: accept it on
> >> faith.
> > The whole of apolgetics is to
> > give reasons for the Faith.
> > Have you never heard of Thomas
>
> Aquinas?
>
> *sigh* yes. Do you accept
> Scholastic apologetics? You
> do realize quite a bit of it
> was based on Aristotle, don't you?
>
The point is Christians have tried
to defend the Faith against unbelievers
througout history, why don't you?
> <snip>
>
Erasing data you can't refute
again?
> > The doctrine of the Trinity is not.
>
> > The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
>
> Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
>
> > stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
> > door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
>
> > Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
> > pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
> > Notice three persons, one Lord
>
> That certainly doesn't "prove" the doctrine of the Trinity
> as affirmed by the Nicene Creed.
>
It does support the doctrine.
Why don't you defend it?
> > Patrick of Ireland used the three
> > leaf clover
>
> Yes, as a teaching aid -- but only because he believed
> in the Trinity from the Creed. A shamrock doesn't
> prove the doctrine of the Trinity.
>
He was willing to defend it,
unlike you?
> <snip>
>
Erasing what you can't
refute again?
> > Mt 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them,
> > Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
> > God the things that are God's.
> > Jesus first centurd A.D.
>
> This says nothing specific about *what* is Caesar's or
> what relationship organized religion has to state control.
> Jesus was talking about giving tax money to the Roman
> government. The Roman government was reasonably tolerant
> about freedom of religion in its empire. Its main
> problem with the Jews was secular insurrections. You'll
> note Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus and said he did
> not see what harm Jesus had done. The Jewish authorities
> persuaded the Romans to crucify Jesus by convincing them
> Jesus's followers represented a political threat to the
> political authority of Caesar.
>
It has been understood as seperation
of state and religion.
> <snip>
>
Erasing what you can't refute again?
> >>>>> Ro 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess
> >>>>> with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> >>>>> and shalt believe in thine heart
> >>>>> that God hath raised him from the dead,
> >>>>> thou shalt be saved.
> >>>> That evidently applies to those you consider "orthodox" and to
> >>>> those you consider "revisionists", and to a great many other
> >>>> people as well. Yet you evidently don't consider them all
> >>>> "correct".
> >>> Only Jesus is correct, but that is the standard
> >>> for orthodox Christianity.
> >> O.K. -- how have the supporters of Robinson not followed
> >> this?
> > I don't see them proclaiming it
> > from the roof tops.
>
> I could make a joke here -- but, seriously, what more do
> you want them to do than they are doing?
>
The presiding bishop could speak
about bringing people to Christ.
> <snip>
>
Erasing what you can't refute
again?
> >> Respecting the authority of the local bishop is the
> >> basic foundation of the *Episcopal* form of church
> >> government. The Archbishop of Canterbury just
> >> reiterated this at the meeting in Africa.
> > If you don't understand the difference
> > between an obediance of love and one
> > of force, I am sorry, but enjoy your
> > empty buildings.
>
> I understand an obedience to vows one has
> willingly taken. If the individuals involved
> don't want to obey, they are free to leave.
> No one is forcing them to stay. They just
> have to leave church property behind if they go.
>
Their vow is first to Christ.
Do you see the bishop as
a constitutional title or a
despotic one?
What the Church Catholic teaches
"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set
aside Ecclesiastical Traditions,
and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things
entrusted to the Church,
or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of
those Traditions
enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED;
BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND
THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY."
-----------Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.
> <snip>
>
Erasing what you can't refute again?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The primary reason I believe the Trinitarians are
> >> right is that the catholic Church says so. But
> >> you would have a hard time proving it from anything
> >> specific in the Bible. The terminology comes
> >> from Greek philosophical categories of the late
> >> classical period, not from Hebrew thought (which
> >> rejects the idea ) or from the New Testament itself.
> >> There were at least three strands of Arianism, and
> >> some Arians were accepted back into the Catholic
> >> church later. There is no way to prove the doctrine
> >> of the Trinity empirically.
> > The Greek Orthodox use this Scripture
> > Ge 18:2 - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
> > stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
> > door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
> > Ge 18:3 - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
> > pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>
> see above
It supports the doctrine, why don't
you defend it?
Your "that is what I have been
taught" would mean if Spong had been your
bishop you wouldn't believe the resurrection
and virgin birth, and if you had been taught
in a mosque, you would wear a burga and
have 20 kids.
Jim