Gay Bishop Predicts Anglican Church Split

titusonenine ^ | 9/23/2005 | WaPo

[Raycpa]

"This has been the most wonderful thing that has ever happened to me -

Its always about him and never about Him.

[Kolokotronis]

" The Man didthers while all around him comes apart..."

You know, Ken, there's another issue here which I have yet to see discussed in any detail save in the most revisionist, heretical spin by the supporters of this demonic man and his episcopal fellow travelers and it is that what we are seeing is yet another fracture in The Body of Christ, resulting, soon, in the collapse of a great Anglo Saxon (even if with an African or Asian face)bastion of Catholicism. I have commented before that, to an "Orthodoxer" like me, Anglicanism seems to have carried the seeds of its own destruction within it ever since the compromises of the Elizabethan era. That said, it now appears that the majority of Anglicans in America will form just several more of the thousands of protestant sects which exist here, conservative Anglo/Catholics, conservative evangelicals and a quasi liturgical form of the gay dominated Metropolitan Church. And I suspect we will see similar line ups throughout the "first world". The respected, and theologically respectful, Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, the "English Orthodoxy" as one of our Archbishops once called it, we knew as young people will be dead.

Even in the "Global South", I don't see a happy future. What seems to be developing there is a dressed up protestant evangelicalism, even in Africa, notwithstanding their Biblical orthodoxy and strong and courageous faith. To me, again as an outsider, that Church seems to have virtually the same internal contradictions which have lead the AC to this terrible pass, if, in fact, that Church maintains that it is still part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The only bright spot I see is the move of the TAC (I think) towards communion with the Church of Rome. But of course as an Orthodox Christian, I don't believe that move is far enough East, but it is certainly light years better than doing nothing. As I understand the history of Anglicanism, though, it was the intent of many of the original reformers in the Anglican Church to reestablish as best they could, the pre-schism English Church. Given the manifest and manifold glories of that ancient Church, the shining jewels of which were its spectacular monasticism and glorious martyrs, why hasn't more consideration been given to reconnecting with the particular Churches with whom the English Church was, before 1054, in full communion? It seems to me that the same considerations apply with equal force to the daughter Churches of the English Church in Africa, where Orthodoxy is the first and thoroughly indigenous expression of The Church, which is why I have said on a few occasions that +Peter of Nigeria should be speaking to +Theodoros II of Alexandria.

Christianity needs, probably more than at any time since the end of the Great Persecutions of the Roman Empire, a united witness to The Faith and The Truth. That united witness, of course, can only come through a complete unity in belief and ecclesiology (to the extent that the latter is in some way distinct form the former). Rome and the Orthodox East are slowly working and praying their way to communion. In some places it exists already, de facto if not de jure. Rather than hunkering down in fractured and ever smaller groups, do you think that the faithful majority of Anglicans ought to be looking long and hard at their ecclesiastical roots and begin to give serious thought to a move to Rome or Orthodoxy?

[gscc]

The Body of Christ, the Church, has never been fractured. Through the Catholic Church hijacking the means to Salvation, through the Crusades, inquisitions, through the conquistadors, through the heretical sects, through the apostate churches like the ECUSA, UCC, etc. the Church has continued. The members sit in the pews of all these Churches. They hold true to their salvation, their trust in God and the saving Grace of his Son Jesus Christ. They love their God with all their heart and all their soul, they love their neighbors as themselves. The are unshaken by what goes on around them. Through the ages their faith has remained strong - they are the Bride of Christ. If you are in a Church that has turned from the precepts of Scripture you need to remain true to His teachings and stay entirely focused on his work on the Cross and his victory over death and what that means for your Salvation.

[ken5050]

Looking to our roots, yes...but first we need a "take out the trash" day..You cannot plant a garden in soil overgrown with weeds..

[Kolokotronis]

"If you are in a Church that has turned from the precepts of Scripture you need to remain true to His teachings and stay entirely focused on his work on the Cross and his victory over death and what that means for your Salvation."

Uhm, check out my tagline. As an Orthodox Christian, I know that The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church within which mankind becomes like God, is saved as you might say it, is at a minimum encompassed in the Orthodox Church. How far it extends beyond that I don't know. In the meantime, I'll just continue my Orthodoxia, my correct praise, in the manner my ancestors have for at least the last 1700 years.

[Kolokotronis]

"Looking to our roots, yes...but first we need a "take out the trash" day..You cannot plant a garden in soil overgrown with weeds.."

Oh, agreed 100%

"We have excised and cut them off from the common body of the Church, we have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them"; they are, therefore, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics." St Mark of Ephesus

[gscc]

If you are in a Church that has turned from the precepts of Scripture you need to remain true to His teachings and stay entirely focused on his work on the Cross and his victory over death and what that means for your Salvation.

 

Meant that as a general statement not at all aimed specifically at you.  Sorry if I was unclear and offended you.

[Kolokotronis]

"Meant that as a general statement not at all aimed specifically at you. Sorry if I was unclear and offended you"

Oh, please, I didn't think you were pointing at me at all. Don't feel bad; I know no offense was intended and none was taken.

My comments were directed at what you believe constitutes The Church. While I do not doubt for one instance that all of the various "ecclesial assemblies" of Protestantism have good people in them who place their trust in God and try mightily to live their lives in accordance with the Scriptures, nevertheless I do wonder whether or not those who are not partakers of the Holy Eucharist, who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, have not cut themselves off from the theosis which I know is available within The Church. This concern is nothin new in The Church:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." St. Ignatius Of Antioch, "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

[gscc]

The mere practice of receiving this "sacrament" regardless of the condition of ones saving faith in Jesus, administered by an "approved" priest is what salvation is all about?

[Kolokotronis]

"The mere practice of receiving this "sacrament" regardless of the condition of ones saving faith in Jesus, administered by an "approved" priest is what salvation is all about?"

Good heavens no!

For 2000 years The Church has spoken to this:

"So "let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup"(1 Cor. 11:28), according to the divine Apostle, for "he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). "For if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged; but when we are judged by the Lord we are chastened" (1 Cor. 11:31-32)." Elder Ephraim of Philotheou Mount Athos, "Counsels from the Holy Mountain

and this from the 1st century again:

"But look at the men who have those perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ…They will not admit the Eucharist is the self same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again" St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1

And this particularly telling comment from one of the greatest saints of The Church:

"I say that the ineffable speech which Paul heard spoken in Paradise were the eternal good things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived.

These things, which God has prepared for those who love Him, are not protected by heights, nor enclosed in some secret place, nor hidden in the depths, nor kept at the ends of the earth or sea.

They are right in front of you, before your very eyes. So, what are they?

Together with the good things stored up in heaven, these are the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which we see every day, and eat and drink. These, we avow, are those good things.

Outside of these you will not be able to find one of the things spoken of, even if you were to traverse the whole of creation.

If you do want to know the truth of my words, become holy by practicing God's commandments and then partake of the holy things, and you will know precisely the force of what I am telling you." St. Symeon the New Theologian

For the Orthodox, salvation is in dying completely to the self (thus to the world) and becoming like God. The Church teaches that it is through reception of the Eucharist that we can advance in that theosis and become like God. Theosis is really a somewhat different notion from what the West calls salvation.

[gscc]

The Church teaches that it is through reception of the Eucharist that we can advance in that theosis and become like God.

Scriptural references please.  Sounds like a physical rather than a spiritual circumcision is required for this theosis.

 

]

[Huber]

Would you please elaborate? I don't know if you're hammering me or agreeing with me.

"Bless your heart" is a gentle, southern style hammer (perhaps more of a "dis"), usually employed by southern belles, as Tax-Chick alluded earlier. Well meaning persons avoiding "organized religion" (belonging to a formal worshiping Christian community) in favor of an individual and personal spirituality are putting themselvees at risk.

Matthew 16:19 tells us that "for where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." Many of the traditional churches have had their leadership taken over by leftists. They have become what we refer to as "dead churches", but these do not represent organized Christian religion, only organized leftism adopting the mantle of religion. Organized Christianity is thriving in churches that remain true to the word of God. Visit a few until you find the right community for yourself. You won't regret it.

[Kolokotronis]

"Scriptural references please."

Oh, your protestant skirts are showing, my friend. When the Fathers and Holy Monastics wrote, they did so from 3 sources, Revelation, Holy Tradition and Scripture. Several things you should understand about Scripture. First, The Church created Scripture, not the other way around. Second, what we now know as the Canon of the NT was not established until quite late, and thus the writings of a man like +Ignatius of Antioch will have little or no NT scripture in them, though his writings were and are a part of the Holy Tradition against which the various writings which contended for inclusion in the Canon were measured. Third, not everything The Church has always and everywhere believed is contained in scripture, though it is contained within Holy Tradition.

"Sounds like a physical rather than a spiritual circumcision is required for this theosis."

Faith vs works, my friend? :)

In order to understand both scripture and Holy Tradition, it is necessary to read the Fathers, but as a taste and on the subject of theosis, there is this:

"According to the text, `We are the body of Christ and each of us is one of its members' (cf. 1 Cor. 12:27), we are said to be the body of Christ. We do not become this body through the loss of our own bodies; nor again because Christ's Body passes into us hypostatically or is divided into members; but rather because we conform to the likeness of the Lord's flesh by shaking off the corruption of sin. For just as Christ in His manhood was sinless by nature both in flesh and in soul, so we too who believe in Him, and have clothed ourselves in Him through the Spirit, can be without sin to Him if we so choose." St. Maximus the Confessor, 2nd Cent.; On Theology, Philokalia, Vol. 2

Or this:

"If the divine Logos of God the Father became son of man and man so that He might make men gods and the sons of God, let us believe that we shall reach the realm where Christ Himself now is; for He is the head of the whole body (cf. Col. 1:18), and endued with our humanity has gone to the Father as forerunner on our behalf. God will stand 'in the midst of the congregation of gods' (Ps. 82:1.LXX) - that is, of those who have achieved theosis - distributing the rewards of that realm's blessedness to those found worthy to receive them, not separated from them by any space." St. Maximos the Confessor, On Theology no. 25, The Philokalia Vol. 2

"The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us...sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature, granting us birth from above through the grace of the Holy Spirit and leading us straightway to the kingdom of heaven, or rather, granting us this kingdom within us (Luke 17:21), in order that we should not merely be fed by the hope of entering it, but entering into full possession thereof should cry: our 'life is hid with Christ in God.' (Col. 3:3)." St. Simeon the New Theologian

Again from +Maximos the Confessor:

"Let us contemplate with faith the mystery of the divine incarnation and in all simplicity let us simply praise Him who in His great generosity became man for us. For who, relying on the power of rational demonstration, can explain how the conception of the divine Logos took place? How was flesh generated without seed? How was there an engendering without loss of maidenhood? How did a mother after giving birth remain a virgin? How did He who was supremely perfect develop as He grew up (cf. Luke 2:52)? How was He who was pure baptized? How did He who was hungry give sustenance (cf. Matt. 4:2; 14:14-21)? How did He who was weary impart strength (cf. John 4:6)? How did He who suffered dispense healing? How did He who was dying bestow life? And, to put the most important last, how did God become man?...Faith alone can embrace these mysteries, for it is faith that makes real for us things beyond intellect and reason (cf. Heb. 11:1)."

Essentially, +Athanasius wrote on the The Incarnation that God became man so that men might become like God. His work is replete with scriptural quotations, far too many to set forth here so I recommend it to you. Here's a link:http://www.monachos.net/patristics/athanasius/di_plain_1-26.shtml

What is important to remember is that for The Church, theosis has almost always been a process; not something which happens all ot once or in some passive way. Dying to the fallen self and becoming like God doesn't "just happen" precisely because we live in a fallen state in a fallen world. Sometimes The Church speaks of theosis as being like climbing a ladder and has given us an Icon to demonstrate this. On one side we see the angels urging us on to Christ, on the other demons tempting us off the ladder into the Pit and damnation. Here's another link: http://www.goarch.org/en/resources/clipart/icons/klimakos.jpg
There is a small book, called The Ladder of Divine Ascent, which was written by +John of the Ladder for the education of the monks in his monastery at Mount Sinai in about 585 AD. Much of it is available online. In it +John outlines, in a series of steps on a ladder, how a man arrives at theosis. Its worth the read if one wishes to understand how the early Church, and indeed The Church in the East today, understands salvation/theosis.

But these are works you might complain. Indeed these
"steps" are works but they are works designed to "circumscribe the spirit" by doing away with the fallen man. The usual, and very modern protestant distinction between faith and works is a false one.

"When Scripture says, 'He will reward every man according to his works' (Matt. 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the Kingdom. On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer." St. Mark the Ascetic.

"...we ought to learn the virtues through practicing them, not merely through talking about them, so that by acquiring the habit of them we do not forget what is of benefit to us. 'The kingdom of God', St. Paul says, 'resides not in words but in power' (I Cor. 4:20). For he who tries to discover things through actual practice will come to understand what gain or loss lies in any activity that he pursues..." St. Peter of Damaskos; The Philokalia Vol. 3 pg. 183)

"...a man has no right to be called faithful, if his faith is a bare word and if he has not in him a faith made active by love or the Spirit. Thus faith must be made evident by progress in works, or it must act in the light and shine in works, as the divine Apostle says: 'Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works' (James 2:18), thus showing that the faith of grace is made evident by works performed in accordance with the commandments, just as the commandments are fulfilled in deed and are made bright through the faith which is in grace" St. Gregory of Sinai (Texts on Commandments and Dogmas no. 119)

"For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines." Catechetical Lectures Of Our Holy Father, Cyril, Archbishop Of Jerusalem - Lecture Iv: On The Ten[1] Points Of Doctrine

My friend, these are, each one of them, from the writings of very, very early Churchmen. Do you suppose they had so early fallen into error, even heresy and so the world had to wait 1500 years for the Protestant Reformation to get it straight?

[gscc]

The Church created Scripture, not the other way around. 

Still no scripture and scripture isn't God inspired - your Church created it? 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, 

correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be 

thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Kolokotronis]

"Still no scripture and scripture isn't God inspired...."

You've lost me. I don't understand what you mean.

"your Church created it?"

"my Church", The Church, same thing. Did The Church create what we now call the NT? The answer as a historical fact is yes. The NT you read today is a product of the pre-schism Church, though the protestants did remove, as I recall, a few inconvenient books. A group of mostly Greek bishops decided which writings were "in" and which were "out". Because they believed, as we do today, that The Church is incapable of error by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The bishops understood that the purpose of the Canon of the NT would be to lay out the Truth about Christ, to establish the Christology we all in varying degrees accept today and to point the way to the theosis made available and possible for us through the Incarnation. Since The Church cannot err in these matters, the bishops measured, lets say, the Gospel of Luke against what The Church always and everywhere believed on the subjects +Luke deals with and found that +Luke was in accord with that Holy Tradition. They did the same with, let's say, The Gospel of +Peter and found it deficient. You may find it interesting that Revelations didn't come into the Canon of the NT until quite late, the Greek speaking bishops of the East being against its inclusion. To this day in Orthodoxy, Revelations plays, I believe, no role whatsoever in any liturgy, devotion or service.

None of the foregoing for one minute denies or diminishes the God inspired nature of the Scriptures. Indeed, it is precisely because the books of the Canon of the NT conform and conformed with Holy Tradition that we can be assured that they are of God.

[gscc]

though the protestants did remove, as I recall, a few inconvenient books

Are you referring to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, because they are in my Bible.

Or are you referring to the deuterocanonical books which even Jerome counseled were not canonical?

[Kolokotronis]

"Or are you referring to the deuterocanonical books which even Jerome counseled were not canonical?"

The deuterocanonical books. +Jerome had his opinion, The Church another. I think I have read that there are books in the NT which the Roman and Orthodox Churches accept but which the protestants do not, but for the life of me I can't remember what they are, if indeed they exist at all.

[gscc]

There were books in the New Testament that Luther was uncomfortable with, however, our New Testament is essentially the same New Testament you use. Some Protestant Churches include deuterocanonical books as useful, but separate, from the Old Testament books as accepted by Protestant Churches and the Jews themselves. It is important to note that Jews do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canon.

[Kolokotronis]

" It is important to note that Jews do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canon."

I've always found that strange since those books are from the Septuagint which was the product of Jewish scholars in the 3rd century BC translating the Jewish scriptures into Greek. Its clearly not some hoax the early Church worked up. Do you remember which NT books Luther was suspicious of?

[gscc]

Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation