Ousted Clergy

[JasonV]

That's pretty much what I was recalling- also: wasn't there a quote that went something like "where the Bishop is, there is the church"?

That was Irenaeus, not Ignatius. I was sticking to Ignatius of Antioch for our purposes.

I find his words somewhat disturbing- to hear such haughty sentiments about the mighty authority of a bishop coming from a bishop smacks of despotism. If the same kind of thought came out of the mouth of a politician about his own authority we would call him a dictator!

I suppose to be fair we should look at the context of those quotes and determine just why he said them. I cannot for the life of me imagine that someone so important in the Apostolic era would be genuinely cruel.

 

[Polycarp1]

It does beg the question- how do the "liberals" know they have it right concerning "Christ's will"? Isn't it more likely that Christ has always kept the Church in faith for thousands of years and new ideas which are decided locally (and via the cultural filters of the deciders) could in fact just be religious sentiments based on human thought? After all...men have a history of getting "Christ's will" wrong with even murderous results...yet there is no doubt that there is a constant and consistant thread of doctrine and practice held by the vast majority of Christians in all times and places that defines what we call orthodoxy- isn't this more indicative of the will of God?

While I respect your right to speak freely, and don't really wish to prove a point to you or anyone here, your line of reasoning I felt begged the question, that's all.

Nitpick: It does not 'beg the question' in formal logic -- i.e., commit the fallacy of petitio principii, of assuming what you set out to prove. However, I see your point: having rejected the traditional understanding of Scripture, how can liberals be sure of knowing God's will? And other than the reading and study of Scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, togtether with the use of reason, I don't have an answer for you. An inner, subjective confidence in one's understanding is of course not valid objectively, as a proof to others, no matter how firmly felt.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

That's pretty much what I was recalling- also: wasn't there a quote that went something like "where the Bishop is, there is the church"?

I find his words somewhat disturbing- to hear such haughty sentiments about the mighty authority of a bishop coming from a bishop smacks of despotism. If the same kind of thought came out of the mouth of a politician about his own authority we would call him a dictator!

Just catching up on this thread.

I'm no scholar - at all, which is easily discernible to anyone who reads my posts. But my understanding of these quotes, which I have read before, is that he is reminding his readers of the position of Bishops as successors to the Apostles - a bedrock teaching of the Church, and that to be truly within the Apostolic Church, you must be united under a Bishop, for that is the true and good order of the Church. I don't read it as meaning that Bishops are infallible and must be obeyed under any and all circumstances.

As someone already mentioned, that has certainly not been the case in the East, and perhaps having a Conciliar understanding of the Church (as I understand Anglicanism to have, as well as Orthodoxy) can be a help in understanding the proper place of the Bishops as shepherds and servants, rather than lords. Not that some Bishops haven't tried their best to be lords rather than servants. But properly understood, because they are "in the place of Christ", they are to serve, as Christ served.

Mary

 

[ContraMundum]

Nitpick: It does not 'beg the question' in formal logic -- i.e., commit the fallacy of petitio principii, of assuming what you set out to prove. However, I see your point:

Nitpick: don't let your personal take on "formal logic" stand in the way of conversation, in particular when you see the other person's point.

having rejected the traditional understanding of Scripture, how can liberals be sure of knowing God's will? And other than the reading and study of Scripture, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, togtether with the use of reason, I don't have an answer for you. An inner, subjective confidence in one's understanding is of course not valid objectively, as a proof to others, no matter how firmly felt.

I agree: but when one person's "Holy Spirit" says something contrary to another's, is there not an arbitrator to turn to for a ruling? What is your understanding of the settlement of doctrinal disputes in Christ's church?

 

[ContraMundum]

I suppose to be fair we should look at the context of those quotes and determine just why he said them. I cannot for the life of me imagine that someone so important in the Apostolic era would be genuinely cruel.

The context of these quotes is often a matter of speculation, and the responses to my comments demonstrate the existence of both an "official" interpretation (eg. "they were perfectly defending the orthodoxy I believe") and an "unofficial" interpretation which says they were just sinners like the rest of us and they were not always perfect. Either way, we are interpreting the interpreters. It's never going to be conclusive on smaller matters like this when we approach theology in such a fashion.

I realise some people find it hard to imagine that anyone "in the Apostolic era would be genuinely cruel" but let me assure you that indeed there were some rather foul characters out there- the scriptures mention them and some of the writings of the ECFs betray their "old man" often (my favorite, although a little later than the Apostolic era: Chrysostom's violent tirades against the Jewish people- formally adopted in Church liturgy for centuries. Very carnal.)

Still, the church cannot diminish the role and necessity of the Bishops, yet she cannot allow hersefl to be subject to their theological and political plights of fancy either. The laity can, and must, correct the clergy when they overstep their boundaries.

 

[MKJ]

Well, oddly enough, though I can grasp exactly why the traditionalists believe as they do on the underlying issue, I'm convinced that, if one must choose between Christ's will and church tradition, one must choose Christ's will, and that in consequence we liberals are in the right, and the traditionalists not merely schismatic but disobedient to God's commandment as well. I don't say this often -- it's insulting with no real hope of changing minds. But it is honestly how I feel about the issue.

Well, I am not sure how to say this without sounding awful - which is not how I mean to sound. But how is this understanding of Tradition - which essentially makes it all tradition - in any way Anglican? It seems to me that it is clearly a very different understanding of what traditions is, so to my mind being one of the very fundamental aspects of Anglicanism, even if it is correct, it isn't really Anglicanism, and more than it could be considered compatible with Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

 

[Polycarp1]

Nitpick: don't let your personal take on "formal logic" stand in the way of conversation, in particular when you see the other person's point.

Oh, agreed. That's why I noted it as a nitpick, not a substantive objection. Sorry if it offended; admitting it was a nitpick was my attempt to de-fuse it.

I agree: but when one person's "Holy Spirit" says something contrary to another's, is there not an arbitrator to turn to for a ruling? What is your understanding of the settlement of doctrinal disputes in Christ's church?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head here. For some churches (including many Anglican individuals, such as I think our brother Brightmorningstar) it would be the Holy Scriptures. For others, the teaching of their bishop. For others, their personal balance among Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. (BTW, I assume 'one person's "Holy Spirit" was intended to you to mean, "what one person believes the Holy Spirit to be saying to him/her" -- correct?)

But in point of fact, there is no commonly accepted standard among Anglicans as to where to look for arbitration/a definitive ruling. As recent events have demonstrated.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, I am not sure how to say this without sounding awful - which is not how I mean to sound. But how is this understanding of Tradition - which essentially makes it all tradition - in any way Anglican? It seems to me that it is clearly a very different understanding of what traditions is, so to my mind being one of the very fundamental aspects of Anglicanism, even if it is correct, it isn't really Anglicanism, and more than it could be considered compatible with Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

I think we all see a line between unchangeable Tradition and highly flexible tradition. The problem is, we see that line in a wide range of different places.

I do not see the delimitation and proper pastoral care of possible sexual sinners as being an element of Holy Tradition. Others may, I admit.

But at rock bottom, even if something has been seen as an element of Tradition, if the issue is one of conflict between it (or how it is being applied in a particualr case) and the direct commandments of Christ -- well, then, the first verse of Ton-y-Botel applies.

 

[ContraMundum]

Oh, agreed. That's why I noted it as a nitpick, not a substantive objection. Sorry if it offended; admitting it was a nitpick was my attempt to de-fuse it.

Oh, not at all- I wasn't even remotely offended. We know each other and I respect your views and learning too much to take offense at your honestly written convictions. No worries.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head here. For some churches (including many Anglican individuals, such as I think our brother Brightmorningstar) it would be the Holy Scriptures. For others, the teaching of their bishop. For others, their personal balance among Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. (BTW, I assume 'one person's "Holy Spirit" was intended to you to mean, "what one person believes the Holy Spirit to be saying to him/her" -- correct?)

Yes, that's what I meant. Personally speaking, I tend to see things through the Vincentian canon as much as possible.

But in point of fact, there is no commonly accepted standard among Anglicans as to where to look for arbitration/a definitive ruling. As recent events have demonstrated.

Yes...it certainly makes things interesting, no?