Astonishment Aplenty

I wonder if our Leading Lady knew what she was getting in for when she wrote that. Seriously, how is anyone to take her at her word when she seems to know little about what she talks about? Sure she read the Cannons of Nicaea I, but did she read the Acts of the Council? Is she familiar with Augustine of Hippo, who himself crossed diocesan lines, and whose See violated diocesan boundaries? How does she expect us to take her seriously?

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Correction: the comment was made by Mark Krikorian on “The Corner” at National Review Online.

It is the well deserved rebuke for KJS decision to morph a traditional religion into the the “church of what’s happenin’ now” There is no sense of the rediculousness of a faith that has no foundation. Gosh, just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he’s a bad person. Which qualifies him for the priesthood and ultimately a bishop. An ancient tradition.

The lovely irony in all of this is the appeal to canons.  ECUSA/TEC (need I remind you this is pronounced to rhyme with heretic) is going to find canons to the right of them and canons to the left of them and canons to their front and canons to their rear.  God grant canonicity govern the ECUSA/TEC from Nicea forward.  That’ll fix the problem quick.  Now, when are the elections of bishops scheduled?

As I wrote in another forum: Never, EVER in the history of the Ecumenical Councils were the borders of dioceses headed by heretical persons intended to be protected from orthodox bishops giving succor to God’s People. All of the Councils affirm that when a bishop falls into serious heresy such a person loses the grace of ordination, his clergy are absolved of their loyalty, and his see is vacant. So, what are people complaining about “breaches” of Catholic order??? Heresy is a breach of Catholic order which renders everything else null and void. To quote Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod (formerly called the 8th Ecumenical Council:

Canon XV of the First-Second Synod

“… But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”

Interesting to note that Episcopal Life Online has not posted Bishop Akinola’s response to Bishop Schori’s letter of admonition.  Also interesting to note that Bishop Akinola is listed among the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine.

Oh, I SERIOUSLY doubt you will find many ‘reappraiser’ sites with the guts to post Bishop Akinola’s response.  You should go to the Episcopal website in Montana - according to them, there has not even been a annual report since 2005 - reminds me so much of Sgt. Shultz from Hogan’s Heroes “I HEAR NOTHING!!  I SEE NOTHING!!”  So, if it actually presents a credible challenge, they just pretend it doesn’t exist (like the fact that the diocese had only 7 viable churches and is now down to 6).

The difference between TEC and the Beatles is that when they were singing ‘Lucy and the Sky of Diamonds’ they at least admitted they were on drugs… these guys are so out of touch with reality they think as long as they can pretend it IS reality.

“Imagine there’s no congregations…..... it’s easy if you try… no central belief in Jesus… only polity and sky…...... imagine all the people… leaving you today… ”

...and was World magazine’s 2006 “Daniel of the Year” (along with Abp Orombi).

r.w.

I do so enjoy seeing the rapier of plain speaking pierce the ballon of pomposity.

Senior Priest - great quote - one comment, what’s your reading of ‘on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly,’?

I don’t doubt that some of TEC’s bishops are preaching heresy - esp KJS, but is same sex unions specifically condemned in the Councils? Also, this refers to public preaching, how would you (or the Fathers / Councils) relate this to Rowans distinction between the private views of a theologian and the public teaching of a bishop, i.e - privately he is for the ordination of those commited to a gay lifestyle, but I don’t think he has preached that.

Again, good post, you have me pondering…

Anselmic, you ask what council condemnes the actions propagated by ECUSA/TEC.  I believe the First Council of Jerusalem did.  “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28-29 ESV)

Anselmic… thx for your kind words… the “Council” to which one may point in this case is Lambeth 98, and the Primates’ October 2003 ruling which declared GVR’s “confirmation” to be contrary to the teaching of the Church.