Does this 'physical' underlying reality not include God (that ultimate of non-physical existences) then? I assume that if God does indeed share the properties of immanence, there is no such thing as 'empty' air...but still no shadow is cast. I am not sure about your claim that only a 'historical' reality can convey meaning. After all, presumably many people who believed in the Norse and Greek myths which sort of happen in a 'mythic' time without definite temporal referents still found some sort of meaning in those myths. I'm sure a similar story could be said of aspects of the Dharmic religions today- like the story of Ganesh losing his head and having it replaced with that of an elephant. In the west, I suppose a similar thing applies to Fairy tales...they make use of concepts we easily understand, they can even teach us lessons about life, but we don't think there was actually a wolf that impersonated a grandmother. There is something very powerful about the fact that Christ is presented in glorious historical particularity, the Roman empire, Pilate, Israel. Yet there are meanings and there are meanings. Am I not right in thinking that Paul calls the crucifixion a 'stumbling block' for the Jews- As I understand it, there is no hint that there would be two comings of the Messiah in the Old Testament when read 'literally' yet it is made to fit the evidence of a man who failed to fulfill the normative messianic interpretation, no coming in glory, no rule of Israel and so on...
Again, I can only respond concerning the ECUSA, not the CoE or it's splinter groups. If you have only a modicum of knowledge of the Episcopal church, you know finances drive everything. The numbers were becoming critically low in the early 70's and the fervor of the civil rights movement had died off, so the church was losing it's appeal on a mass level. The National Church started seeing the shock jock reaction to John Shelby Spong and his counterparts over at the Jesus Seminar, and suddenly the church tried to promote itself as open and inviting to the disenfranchised ( a phrase adopted by the General Convention in 1979), As issues such as homosexuality, gender bending, and assisted suicide came to the forefront concerning clergy and lay members, conservatives and moderates raised their objections all based upon scripture. For two decades the war raged between the National Church and these groups, but the end result was the dramatic shift in doctrine and the very public expulsion of conservatives. Bums in pews equate to tithing dollars, which is their priority. Jeff
Well, I must confess I am hardly fit to comment in reply to these accusations towards the Episcopal Church, so I shall not pursue it any further, because nobody gains by the sharing of my ignorance! Though what do you think to the rest of my post? Which, if I'm being honest, is the bit I'm more interested in nattering about anyway.
Certainly. If the creeds are viewed as a tool to "fix and define terms" is that nothing more than a doctrinal statement or commentary? As I told Stalwart in a private communication, I don't dismiss the creeds or the 39 articles, I just understand the basis for them was Holy scripture. Jeff
I was referring to the ACC REC, ACNA, etc. I do acknowledge that most have split from the ECUSA and not the CoE, but they all either publicly or privately desire communion with the CoE as part of their identity. Jeff
I imagine that if (for want of a better phrase) a "dissident Anglican" were to visit a CofE church, there would be no problem giving her/him communion. I'm sure you'd be welcome at ours, even though our Vicar is female.
I've never had opposition to female clergy,my posts consistently have confirmed that. Perhaps you have me confused with the myriad of others you disagree with on the forum? Jeff
The Epistles are wholly discursive and straightforward, actually. So are the Gospels. While our Lord used many parables the narrative of his life is straightforward and factual. The same can be said for most of the Old Testament. You're right. Thankfully we have theology and theologians to do that kind of stuff. Those seem to be perfectly literal, just not in the ordinary way we use the term in the natural world. Theologians have said that the Fathership of the Father resides in his logical priority, not temporal. The Son proceeds from the Father, but there was never a time when the Father was and the Son was not. I think what he's reacting to is the fact that the scope of passages we ignore gets wider and wider with time. in the 1950s the first passages about divorce started to be ignored. Then about promiscuity and fornication. Then about abortion. Then about homosexuality. Now about gay marriage. And there's tons of other examples like that. People seem intent on adapting the Holy Scripture to the world, rather than adapting the world to Holy Scripture, and that's a position we as Anglicans cannot take.
Thank God for that. Perhaps I have. Sad that a mainstream active member of the CofE attracts such disagreement in what is purportedly an Anglican forum.
Well, although you frequently suggest your opinions are mainstream and normative in the CoE, we also understand that localized pockets of liberal thought can be condoned in the larger setting, but perhaps the international community of this forum see's the CoE moving away from traditional Anglican doctrine as the ECUSA has been for 2 decades. Jeff
How are we moving away from "traditional Anglican doctrine"? (I wonder if Pope John XXIII got similar criticism with regard to our sister Church? Pope Francis seems to be causing the odd raised eyebrow, too).
I suppose the first step would be to ask you what you consider historical theological documents of the church, and do you hold them as authoritative? Jeff
You are not the pope seagull. Neither am I. There is one Truth, one Christ, one Scripture, and one Faith delivered once for all time to the Saints. If you move from the Faith you fall into apostasy. You can try all you want to involve Romanist theological doctrines but they have no role in our Church. We are judged by one standard for all time. That standard does not change, and if we change we fall into apostacy. That's what "the mother church" of Anglicanism has always taught.
There is no pope seagull. Are you accusing Pope Francis and/or Archbishop Welby of falling into apostacy? If so, I am in good company.
So your rock of faith is a re-statement of a re-statement made in the late 1800's, who's motive was to embrace Rome?
The Scriptures, the Creeds, the two Sacraments (Rome has seven) and the Historic Episcopate? I could do a lot worse. I could be a sexist creationist, for example.
Just to point out, most og Pope Francis's "radical breaks with tradition" are either the media misconstruing what he acually said or did, or just the fact that people aren't used to having a consencrated religious (I think that's the right term) as Pope, since it hasn't happened for centuries.
Pope Francis is perfectly in line with Pope Benedict, John Paul II and all other post-Vatican II popes. The break with Tridentine tradition in Rome is clear, although RC conservatives try to explain it away.