tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8794994992086404756..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: No Bible and without a prayerFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59422793722587267832008-10-04T05:29:00.000-04:002008-10-04T05:29:00.000-04:00Thank you so much for this retelling of this story...Thank you so much for this retelling of this story; especially the term, "contrived relevance".<BR/><BR/>I have been reading the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer and recalling my novus ordo liturgical education. I was trying to come up with a succinct way to describe the clever, scholarly, and thoroughly cooked-up nature of these modern rites. "Contrived relevance" fits the bill exactly!Southern Nonjurorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17049332122022842945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16565309720515501432008-10-01T18:25:00.000-04:002008-10-01T18:25:00.000-04:00Here it is from Virtue on Line:http://www.virtueon...Here it is from Virtue on Line:<BR/><BR/>http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=274Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84091200547100609662008-10-01T16:28:00.000-04:002008-10-01T16:28:00.000-04:00Dr Toon has correctly (as far as I can judge) labe...Dr Toon has correctly (as far as I can judge) labelled 'Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier' as a manifestation of Sabellianism (or modalism).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55587634308224408392008-10-01T13:18:00.000-04:002008-10-01T13:18:00.000-04:00Fr. John. That link os apparently too old. Click...Fr. John. That link os apparently too old. Clicking it gets this"<BR/>"The requested document does not exist on this server."<BR/>What was the content of it?<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3866052075615531712008-10-01T10:43:00.000-04:002008-10-01T10:43:00.000-04:00This has been around for quite a while, but also i...This has been around for quite a while, but also is a very good description of how a parish is taken over by these social revolutionaries.<BR/><BR/>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1024260/postsswnixvFr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46375811979346899922008-10-01T10:38:00.001-04:002008-10-01T10:38:00.001-04:00I had the opportunity to study under the guidance ...I had the opportunity to study under the guidance Fr. Dunbar and the other excellent clergy at St. John's for the majority of this summer. (I can't imagine his reaction to receiving an honorary doctorate from Virtue Online.)<BR/><BR/>Fr. Dunbar and I discussed Hooker's Lawes, Book V, his sermon and Cranmer's Homilies on Justification, and a great many Reformation Catechisms.<BR/><BR/>He's been very much interested in the differences of translation addressed in this parish paper, and in particular, the nature of the Trinity. There were also great discussions concerning the problems associated with the "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier" tripe you hear about in parishes with only vague notions of the Creeds.<BR/><BR/>The link to the full parish paper which Virtue is quoting can be found here: http://www.stjohnssav.org/chPPReadIt.asp?ID=339RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55630630266471947702008-10-01T10:38:00.000-04:002008-10-01T10:38:00.000-04:00This is an outstanding history of the left's long ...This is an outstanding history of the left's long march through the Episcopal Church.<BR/><BR/>I wish that every Episcopalian/Anglican could read this. It would be a clarification for what happened to many.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, there are still many decent Christians who are trying to "hang in there" with TEC. They will have to be quiet and make no waves, or they will be thrown out.<BR/><BR/>Now that the social revolutionaries have complete control they will brook no dissent and they intend to carry the fight to the enemy (that's us) to eliminate the remaining pockets of resistance to their vision of inclusiveness and equality.<BR/><BR/>We need to get this out to the broader public.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86632998789346158962008-10-01T06:14:00.000-04:002008-10-01T06:14:00.000-04:00Interesting you bring up the question of distortin...Interesting you bring up the question of distorting language to further the agenda of heretical thinking.<BR/><BR/>I just read the following yesterday on Virtue:<BR/><BR/>At a meeting with the clergy of the diocese, (Jefferts-Schori)asked them to meditate on Mark 1:11, "You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased", the words spoken by "a voice from heaven" to Jesus at his baptism in Jordan. <BR/><BR/>"We were to apply this text directly to ourselves, and to ponder what it meant to be assured of God's unconditional love and approval. To judge from the responses, the assembled clergy loved this exercise, and in the discussion that followed the conventional themes of inclusiveness emerged - although a few did acknowledge a nagging sense that God might not be altogether "well-pleased" with them," wrote the Rev. Dr. Gavin G. Dunbar, rector of St. John's, Savannah, in his parish newsletter, under the title "Miss Congeniality."<BR/><BR/>"What no-one acknowledged was that this approach to the biblical text rested on very thin ice. It simply ignored what the text actually says: "Thou art my beloved son" - the singular, and not the plural "you" - or, as it appears in St. Matthew's gospel, "This is my beloved son" - this person, and not any others. <BR/><BR/>"That (unacknowledged) exegetical fact has critical theological implications, likewise ignored. On the one hand it means that the human race does not by nature immediately enjoy divine sonship and God's love. On the other it means that only Jesus does. And therefore our share in the love of God is not by nature but by grace, not immediate but mediated, and mediated by Jesus. "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). As sole mediator of God and man, as the one through whom alone we may come to enjoy the Father's love and approval, Jesus has the right to command our faith and obedience to his word, as means and conditions for receiving the benefits of his mediation. And that opens up the whole question of what faith and obedience to him involves: in particular, the right ordering of the Church's life, and the right ordering of the human soul. And that brings us directly to the questions which Ms Jefferts Schori and her adulators dismissed as ungracious nit-picking by trouble-making conservatives. "We all believe in Jesus" she assured us, but what do we believe about Jesus? Who is this Jesus? In her account, a person of remarkably little consequence. <BR/><BR/>"When I ventured to raise this exegetical and theological problem, Ms Jefferts Schori made no answer. But other persons present were quick to refute me. One appealed to the immediacy of his feeling of God's love as proof that I was wrong about the need of mediation. Subjective experience trumped doctrine. Another dismissed the authority of Scripture and the Church's teaching as irrelevant, because, he said, (I kid you not) he had heard the voice of God when Ms Jefferts Schori spoke! An over-excited response, no doubt - but virtually the whole room then endorsed his comments with a standing ovation. Sad as it is that an officer of the Church gives so little importance to the mediating person and work of Christ, it is even more sad that so many Episcopalians see no problem there, and resent those who do."Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.com