Posted on 10/27/2006 5:23:02 PM PDT by sionnsar
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams - hosting a discussion that affirmed the Episcopal Church's commitment to the shared ministries of the Anglican Communion -- welcomed Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori to Lambeth Palace October 27 for a 90-minute meeting described as a "cordial and collegial" exchange.
The morning visit, requested by Griswold last spring, provided the Presiding Bishop the opportunity to introduce his successor to the Archbishop in the week preceding the November 1 start of the nine-year tenure to which she was elected June 18.
"I was pleased to see the warmth of cordial interaction between the Archbishop and the Presiding Bishop-elect," Griswold said after the meeting, where the three shared private conversations for which no observers were present.
Jefferts Schori stated her appreciation for the "frank conversation about challenges in the Communion," and for "the opportunity to meet together face to face and begin a relationship that we hope will be fruitful and collegial."
Griswold stressed the importance of relational collaboration, noting that "at the heart of communion is found the reality of incarnation."
Williams greeted Griswold and Jefferts Schori in the State Room of Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop's official London residence since the year 1197. After their meeting in the Archbishop's office, Williams accompanied his guests downstairs into the palace grounds prior to their departure.
Lambeth Palace also announced that England's Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt. Rev. John Saxbee, will represent the Archbishop of Canterbury in Washington D.C. at Jefferts Schori's November 4 investiture as the Episcopal Church's 26th Presiding Bishop and Primate. The Anglican Communion's Secretary General, the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, will also attend the liturgy, set for the Washington National Cathedral.
After departing Lambeth Palace, Griswold and Jefferts Schori joined the congregation for a noontime Eucharist at nearby St. Matthew's Church, Westminster. In an unexpected moment, Ephesians 4:1-6 was read as one of the day's scripture lessons, significant because the passage is also scheduled to be read at Jefferts Schori's upcoming investiture.
The Presiding Bishop and Presiding Bishop-elect later visited Westminster Abbey to join the congregation for Evensong.
Jefferts Schori officially concluded on October 25 more than five years of ministry as bishop of the Diocese of Nevada. The House of Bishops elected her 26th Presiding Bishop during the 75th General Convention's nine-day meeting in Columbus, Ohio. The House of Deputies affirmed the vote the same day.
-- Canon Robert Williams, director of communication for the Episcopal Church, is travelling with the Presiding Bishop and Presiding Bishop-elect in London.
Yes, Luther was bitterly opposed to (and deeply distressed by) the excesses of Karlstadt and his ilk. The whitewashed plain New England meeting house is the legacy of Zwingli and Calvin, not Luther.
Knowledge of The Faith, as taught by The Fathers and as expressed by the Ecumenical Councils allows one to determine if one really is a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Iconoclasm is an ancient heresy which was in some senses a result of Monophysitism in that it rejects the body. In other ways it was a result of Mohammedanism. It was pretty well stamped out among Christians until perhaps a generation after Luther when it bagan to gain ground in the West, though not in the East. Interestingly, some Mohammedan sects, especially in the area of Syria/Jordan/Palestine, have a great devotion to icons of the Theotokos. Perhaps these quotes from the proclamations of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which I always thought Anglicanism accepted, though now I begin to wonder, will help.
"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."
And from the Synodikon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which we all read in unison on the Great Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy:
As the Prophets beheld,
As the Apostles taught,
As the Church received,
As the Teachers dogmatized,
As the Universe agreed,
As Grace illumined,
As the Truth revealed,
As falsehood passed away,
As Wisdom presented,
As Christ awarded,
Thus we declare,
Thus we assert,
Thus we proclaim Christ our true God
and honor His saints,
In words,
In writings,
In thoughts,
In sacrifices,
In churches,
In holy icons.
On the one hand, worshipping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord.
And on the other hand, honoring and venerating His Saints as true servants of the same Lord.
This is the Faith of the Apostles.
This is the Faith of the Fathers.
This is the Faith of the Orthodox.
This is the Faith which has established the Universe.
"The whitewashed plain New England meeting house is the legacy of Zwingli and Calvin, not Luther."
Reminds me of the time, more than 20 years ago, when She Who Must Be Obeyed and I took the boys, aged about 2.5 and 5 to the wedding of one of her nieces in a small white washed very plain Congregational church in the woods. Both boys had been in church virtually every Sunday of their lives since their baptisms and should have known how to act but the little one kept squirming and the older one looked very puzzled. After a few minutes he leaned over to me and asked where the altar was. There wasn't one and I told him that apparently they didn't use one here. After a minute or two of looking around, he whispered, "Where are the icons?" I told him they didn't use them. At that point, in a very loud voice he exclaimed, "They don't use icons? Daddy, are you sure this is a church?"
I've calmed down. Just for the record, I'm not an iconoclast who thinks images in church are sinful. I take the moderate position of the vast majority of non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, that images of Jesus, or even (in certain ways) the Trinity are OK, as long as one doesn't venerate them--that is bow down before them, as described in the command. The barren Zwingli/Calvinist churches are not my style--as I think they go too far in avoiding imagages (looking only to the first half of the 2nd Command) at the expense of beauty and glory in places of worship.
The Charibim, over the Ark in the Temple, the embroidered curtains there, the elaborate candle holder, all indicate that God appreciates art, and even images...as long as they are not prayed to or before.
If you look up the history of idolatry in ancient Rome--and discussions they had with Christians, you will find EXACTLY the same arguments given by modern image (flat, unrealistic or othewise) venerators. The ancient pagans were not stupid, they didn't really think their statues were the gods themselves....they just represented the gods which they worshiped by venerating the statues.
In ancient Israel and in the Decalogue it is very clear though, we are not to make representations of God as an aid to worship God, this is why the command specifically prohibits bowing before images of any kind.
Even the (great) sin of worshiping the golden calf, was more of a 2nd Command violation, than a 1st. Aaron didn't deny Yahweh had delivered them from Egypt...he just created an image to use in the worship of Yahweh. This was considered a horrible thing by Yahweh--so bad in fact He almost anihilated the whole people because of it.
The line between veneration and worship seems extremely blurred--which is why traditional protestants have always shyed from images being a direct aid to worship. A painting of Jesus on the wall is one thing--but praying before that image, honoring the image in a special way at all (whatever word you want to use)--well, that sounds like a golden calf to me--and definitely prohibited by the 2nd Commandment.
As to the original topic--it appears the AofC has been becoming more orthodox, and he shouldn't be written off. Instead of running him down, we really should pray for him, and that faithful Christians will have more and more of an influence on him.
Veneration is something that shows reverence, like some might show for the American Flag or the Holy Bible.
Worship is reserved for God alone.
A pagan might worship an idol, believing it to be holy in and of itself. An Orthodox Christian would never worship an icon although they would show it reverence which would actually be directed to the person it represented and not the object itself.
Orthodox do not "pray to" an icon. If you learned more about the Orthodox Christian Church, you'd realize how silly that suggestion really is.
"I'm not an iconoclast who thinks images in church are sinful. I take the moderate position of the vast majority of non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, that images of Jesus, or even (in certain ways) the Trinity are OK, as long as one doesn't venerate them--that is bow down before them, as described in the command."
But AR, what you describe is in fact iconoclasm. There is no manner of Catholic, whether Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, Lutheran or Coptic Orthodox who can say what you say because all Catholics, which is to say members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, accept the dogma of the 7th Ecumenical Council on the use and veneration of icons. We don't get to pick and choose on these matters. Protestants are free to pick and choose and have and the results are there for all the world to see.
The idea that what you call God is arbitrary, and that he has not given us his Name, is another form of iconoclasm, if you think about it.
And when the linguistic inconclasts attempt to construe "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" as a valid subsitution for "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" we are right back to the 2nd Century heresy of Modalism.
Truly, as Quoheleth says, "there is nothing new under the sun."
Well said.
That is true! But Katharine Jefferts-Schori is still an unrepentant flaming heretic who is also selling the ECUSA out to the New World Order!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.