Replies

The author of this piece says that Elizabeth Kaeton hits the nail on the head when she says that "“Not only do we have different ways of interpreting scripture, here’s the truth of it, straight away: We do not worship the same images of God." and goes on to talk about lex orandi, lex credendi. I'd have thought that her comment was just about the most obvious thing in this entire situation. There is nothing even remotely profound in what she says and it should have been obvious when ECUSA refused to declare Pike a heretic decades ago. Do any people still in communion with ECUSA realize how incredibly silly and pretentious they look when "good" Episcopalians hang "Christa" on the wall of their cathedral, develop "women's liturgies", lionize, or at least refuse to anathematize bishops who deny the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection or applaud the recent comments of that man Robinson in personna episcopi praising an organized baby killing outfit like Planned Parenthood (let alone consecrating him in the first place)? Why didn't it occur to the vast run of good Episcopalians that something was very rotten in their ecclesial assembly 30 years ago, that just perhaps their bishops were worshiping a different "god" than they were?

The author here suggests three possibilities, two of which presuppose remaining in communion with the ECUSA bishops. That's simply absurd and if the author really believes in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then his suggestions evince a level of spiritual cowardice or perhaps even prevarication which is worthy of condemnation. To tell you the truth, I don't think he believes in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think he believes in something else which shed any claim to being part of The Church when it began making doctrinal compromises among its member parishes decades, maybe hundreds of years ago. That is the only possible explanation for this fetish about preserving communion with people who are either clearly not Christians or at best, such a theologically "diverse" group of "Christians" that one really can't know what they believe in. It goes far beyond lex orandi lex credendi!

I have posted here before the comments of +John Chrysostomos that no only heretics, but those who are in communion with them are enemies of God; of St. Theodore the Studite who warned that communion with heretics was poison for the soul; of the 7th Ecumenical Council declaring Anathema on those who will not anathematize heretics; of +Maximos the Confessor who declared that he would break communion with a patriarch with whom the whole universe had communion should that patriarch venture to preach a another gospel, a new teaching. The list could go on and on. None of them ever believed that the unity of the Church was more important than doctrinal Orthodoxy, the protestations of the ECUSA revisionists to the contrary notwithstanding. These Fathers are the Fathers honored by The Church of which the Anglican Communion claims to be a part, whose writings pre exist the establishment of the Anglican Church. Why the apparent refusal of so many to follow what the Fathers have written, unless these people, these Episcopalians, really don't believe what the Fathers taught? If that is so, fine, but to presume to call one selves members of The Church at the same time is disingenuous at best and to condemn others, like Louie Crew, for proclaiming a different faith when in fact that is exactly what they themselves have done is more than simply unfair.

Time and again in the history of the Church this has happened, especially in the East and it is by excising the heresy and the heretics, many times in fact under the leadership of the Pope of Rome, that Orthodox Christianity has been preserved. Rome can claim the same thing in the West. Indeed, as we all know, Rome and the Orthodox East did precisely this to each other; we even tried to create a phony reunion, the False Union of Florence in the 1450s, which was finally consigned to an ecclesial dustbin through the efforts of St. Mark of Ephesus. But the door to reunion with heretics has always been left open, but only upon, at a minimum, a rejection of the former heretical beliefs and a profession of Faith. Just yesterday I witnessed the reception of two Protestants into Orthodoxy by Chrismation. Part of the sacrament was their renunciation of their former heresies and a profession of The Faith by recitation, and meaning it, of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed.

Over the past 11 months or so I have read here and elsewhere that leaving everything one knows behind is very very hard. I understand that, but theosis isn't easy. It requires a commitment to The Faith beyond all else, possessions, heritage, even family for some people. Some of us are called to make that sacrifice, some of us are not. I can't say as I understand why that is true, but it is. After the Chrismations yesterday, I was at the Baptism, Chrismation and first Communion of a young women into Orthodoxy. Because of her choice, she has been shunned by her fundamentalist parents who now say they no longer have her as their daughter. She has given up everything, everything of value to her, her own parents because she has little else in this world, to follow Christ as a member of The Church. Her example is a powerful one, but it is one which is repeated every hour of every day around the globe among Christians, especially the African Christians who endanger themselves by proclaiming their membership in the Orthodox, Roman or Anglican Churches. And here people worry about buildings, and trust funds and graveyards and their social ties, so rather than excise the heresy and the heretics, they wring their hands and look for one more compromise like DEPO, or some way to nuance the theology of the Church so that everyone can be happy. The author here really proposes only one valid alternative, a fair divorce. Even an unfair one would be acceptable under the circumstances.

Sorry for the rant.