MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Ugh. Hold my hair, please; I gotta hurl.

Posted by: Monica at January 24, 2008 12:43 PM

"the liturgy takes the worshipper through eight stations of the MDGs,"

I got all excited until I realized it did not say eight MGD's ... MMMM, beer!

Posted by: quasimodo at January 24, 2008 01:27 PM

For more MDG fun, Go to Kendall Harmon's site (TitusOneNine) and search for the post entitled "A Picture from the Diocese of Michigan’s convention" . . .

(Spamfilter won't let me link it).

It's the barefoot druid priestess on the left that makes it . . .

Posted by: The Abbot at January 24, 2008 03:40 PM

Right; I'll stop meditating on Jesus' falling under the crushing weight of the Cross so I can consider how to promote gender equality and empower women...

Posted by: Christine at January 24, 2008 04:24 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I really like #2: Station 2: Create a card using a poster-size piece of paper. Have each pilgrim write encouraging words, scripture, drawings, etc., making sure to write at the level of a primary school student. Send the card to an Episcopal/Anglican school in the developing world.

Howzabout one of them posters from the 1970s featuring a monkey holing onto a branch, with the caption: "Hang in there." Maybe send it to Congo, or Darfur. I'm sure the folks over there could use an encouraging poster or two. It'll bring a smile to their faces as they have to pick up and move yet again to avoid being slaughtered.

Posted by: rbj at January 24, 2008 04:35 PM

Check out No. 7: Pilgrims calculate their carbon footprint and come up with three strategies to reduce it.

Posted by: LMC at January 24, 2008 05:40 PM

With the Episcoapalians, one always has to look beyond the foolery to see the elephant being snuck through the room...

Don't focus at the sheer idocy at the "stations", look at what is not contained in the prayers:

"At the beginning of each station the group prays together:

"God you created us and call us to be in this world,
part of your creative force.
In Christ you teach us the way of salvation.
Help us to live radically in a broken world.
Send your Spirit upon us that we might be
instruments of your peace.

"Vocalizing the Millennium Development Goals: The leader will read the goal out loud at each station

"Reflection: Participants will reflect on each goal (see below)

"At the end of each station the group prays together:

"Holy God
Holy and Mighty
Holy Immortal One
Transform us
That we might transform the world

When you have passed through all eight stations please return to area around the font."

Do you see the elephant? No?

Then read it again.

Now ask yourself this question, if a person who had NO prior knowledge of God read this, what sex would they determine God to be?

That Grasshopper, or is it Weedhopper is the true iniative behind the Episcopal Church's MGD.

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 24, 2008 06:26 PM

With the Episcoapalians, one always has to look beyond the foolery to see the elephant being snuck through the room...

Don't focus at the sheer idocy at the "stations", look at what is not contained in the prayers:

"At the beginning of each station the group prays together:

"God you created us and call us to be in this world,
part of your creative force.
In Christ you teach us the way of salvation.
Help us to live radically in a broken world.
Send your Spirit upon us that we might be
instruments of your peace.

"Vocalizing the Millennium Development Goals: The leader will read the goal out loud at each station

"Reflection: Participants will reflect on each goal (see below)

"At the end of each station the group prays together:

"Holy God
Holy and Mighty
Holy Immortal One
Transform us
That we might transform the world

When you have passed through all eight stations please return to area around the font."

Do you see the elephant? No?

Then read it again.

Now ask yourself this question, if a person who had NO prior knowledge of God read this, what sex would they determine God to be?

That Grasshopper, or is it Weedhopper? is the true initiative behind the Episcopal Church's MGD.

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 24, 2008 06:26 PM

We've had zero% attention to MDGs and such nonsense in our parish. The beauty is, parishes and laity are under no obligation to pay attention to crap like this, because the bishop is not speaking with authority.

I had to chuckle as I was first reading the comments this afternoon right I had just gotten an email from the parish secretary to read this weekend. Try reading the comments after reading 1 Corinthians 1:10-18 and you'll see what I mean.

Does the Episcopal Church have more than its fair share of tomfoolery and buffoonery? You bet. Is the RC Church somehow absent of the theological equivalent of Judge Elihu Smales? I don't think so.

And, Dan, I'll see your barefoot druid chick picture and raise you with the home video I have of the liturgical dancers at The Dear One's former RC parish in Rob's new diocese. Don't make me go there, because I will. Smokin' stuff.

Mrs. P.: What gender is there in the sentence "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."? And what gender is specifically implied in, "And there are also many things, whatever Jesus did, which if they were written singly, I suppose the world itself could not contain those books being written." And why did John dwell so little on such human distinctions and so much on the vast mystery of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier?

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 24, 2008 07:51 PM

Ah...there's a world of difference, theologically between a Druid and a liturgical difference. A Druid is a cultist. However both are asinine, visually.

As far as the In the begining goes... that is not a prayer to God. That is the Apostle John speaking about Christ. Oh and the Apostle John was not one bit confused about Jesus being male. It is the Episcopal Church who believes and teaches this starting off with the PB herself. Look into her squid analogy or her first prayer as PB with Jesus our mother... Oh and were the Apostle Jonh and Jesus were never lovers. The Episcopal Church teaches this too.

The Catholic Church has it's problems over the centuries but it has kept the full deposit of the Faith intact.

The Episcopal Church cannot ever make the same claim

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 24, 2008 08:07 PM

The liturgical dancer in question (barefoot, of course), was wearing an alb, a funky stole-y sort of scarf, and also handed out communion: draw your distinctions where you wish, of course. Granted, she wasn't wearing an oak leaf crown, but she did have funky mascara, and was serving communion in the "drive through line" for folks on their way out the door....

As to the issue of John and Jesus, the question still remains as to the meaning and nature of Logos, and those two mysterious statements John uses to begin and end his gospel with.

As to the deposit of the Faith being kept intact, I could only agree with you if I'd be willing to equate "kept intact" with "added all sorts of stuff later unsupported by text or tradition of the Gospels," not the least of which being the claimed infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. When exactly did that begin again? How Cephas, of all people, can be considered to be the role model of exempt from the possibility of error?

The Anglican Communion, for all its manifold human flaws, has one great strength to me: it is every aware that as human beings we are never exempt from the possibility of error. In fact, the higher you rise, the greater the chance of error, because of pride, arrogance, vanity, hatred, jealousy, malice, ignorance, or just down right being of good heart but being completely wrong. The spirit where He desires breathes, and the voice of him you hear, but not you know from where he comes and where he goes. Spirit, scripture, reason, tradition.

But that's just me, Mr. Vegas.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 24, 2008 09:05 PM

Also:

Holy God Holy and Mighty Holy Immortal One Transform us That we might transform the world

...
Now ask yourself this question, if a person who had NO prior knowledge of God read this, what sex would they determine God to be?

A person who had no prior knowledge of church history or theology, or think that Christianity flows only from the confiines of the Lateran Walls, would also not necessarily know or recoginze the beginning one of the oldest prayers in Christianity, the Trisagion, "Agios o Theos, agios ischyros, agios athanatos, eleison imas." While I'm not at all comfortable with the last part that they added (which is a whole separate aside), the first part, which seems to be what you are taking umbrage with for being "gender neutral," is not new but very, very, very old.

And when I read it, or meditate on the trisagion, I confess I have no idea what the gender of the divine is, because at that level, does it really matter? Why does it matter? The Trisagion as a prayer points in a direction of sanctification that for me at least blows that completely away.

Or maybe I'm missing something altogether.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 24, 2008 10:24 PM

Steve-O, not that many years ago I'd have said the same thing. But I'm no longer getting the "Whoa! Wait a minute! Let's not go overboard here!" vibe one would associate with recognition of Mankind's inherent fallibility that used to be the bulwark of the Anglican defense. It strikes me instead that what her Presiding Bishopressness and friends are now pushing is a very specific refutation of at least two out of the four legs of the platform you mention, and a very real effort to mold TEC in what they KNOW to be the "correct" image, i.e., a radically progressive one. Indeed, it reminds me of our college days, in which the plea for diversity and tolerance was nothing but cover for the pursuit of an iron alt-orthodoxy.

As for your parish not being affected, that's just the Uncle Owen Defense ("It's all such a long way from here.") I relied on that myself for quite a long time, but can no longer pretend that my Faith is contained solely within the Sanctuary doors of my home church. Either the apostolic succession and the episcopal hierarchy mean something or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

(Yes, you can probably rip my argument to shreds, but I've never pretended to any kind of theological sophistication and instead am basically going on my gut on this one. Be gentle.)

Posted by: Robbo the LB at January 24, 2008 10:45 PM

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not talking about Mrs. P's elephant. I'm talking about the whole MDG's vs. Stations of the Cross thingy.

Posted by: Robbo the LB at January 24, 2008 10:52 PM

I think perhaps some in the ECUSA would prefer to see the Holy Trinity become the Holy Quaternary: Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Karl.

Posted by: Allen at January 24, 2008 11:00 PM

How Cephas, of all people, can be considered to be the role model of exempt from the possibility of error?

This is an oft-stated misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility. The doctrine never claims the pope is personally perfect; what it claims, rather, is that when the pope is proclaiming a particular teaching ex cathedra (or in addition when the majority of bishops, in union with the Holy Father, have together held the same teaching consistently from the earliest days of the church, e.g., re: abortion), that the teaching is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be without error. The Pope has rarely spoken ex cathedra.

If our doctrine were dependent on the holiness of the particular pope in question, we'd be a troubled church indeed. But we separate the Office from the man who occupies the Office; the authority of the Office is never eradicated simply because the man fails to live up to standards of holiness.

Posted by: Christine at January 25, 2008 03:25 AM

Actually Christine it is a deadly confrontation to the argument, because it raises the question of when did Peter become without the possibility of error in his leadership of the Church. It couldn't have been when he was first commissioned, because it was after this that he denied Christ three times in his hour of need and then ran away to hide, leaving the women (and John) to stand up during the crucifixition. (Tying this back into Rob's original post, I knew my altar boy days were over when, serving at the Stations in the other parish in town, I got in a wicked argument with a visiting Jesuit over whether one of the Stations should be "Peter and the others run away and abandon Jesus.") Or was it after the Resurrection, but if it was then what is special about Peter relative for example to James, Jesus' brother, leading the Church in Jerusalem? The paraclete was promised and came, but if anything becomes clear in reading from Genesis onwards is that it is a very rare thing for people to understand and follow that correctly for very long at an institutional level, let alone absolutely and purely for 2000 years. That's what makes the leaders who do do it and get it stand out from the parade of clownery and folly. That's not to criticize The Rock: I mean, he's such a powerful character precisely because he's so completely and reconizably human. The part in John, when Jesus has tried to angrily explain the idea of the living bread, and they are abhorently outraged because it sounds like Jesus is asking them to be cannibals, and he tells them in effect to take it or leave it, and the crowd slinks away, and Jesus turns to his followers and says well, are you going to leave to? And Peter's answer is so beautiful, you can see him crying, saying I don't understand what the heck you are saying, it sounds crazy, but I believe in you so what can I do? Heart breakingly beautiful.

As to the argument that:

This is an oft-stated misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility. The doctrine never claims the pope is personally perfect; what it claims, rather, is that when the pope is proclaiming a particular teaching ex cathedra (or in addition when the majority of bishops, in union with the Holy Father, have together held the same teaching consistently from the earliest days of the church, e.g., re: abortion), that the teaching is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be without error. The Pope has rarely spoken ex cathedra.

that's my point exactly. It's been rarely used precisely because it is new, or at least new in the long history of the Church, a development of the 19th century Vatican that had lost its temporal political power after the political consolidation of the Italian state. The doctrine is not that the Pope is perfect or without sin, but that the paraclete prevents the possibility of error in teaching, and therefore in the leadership of the Church. Okay, so Quod super his is without error? Or one of my favorites, Inter catera divinia? Hmm? The problem with the argument is that it then rapidly becomes "All Popes since Peter speak infallibly when speaking ex cathedra, with the exception of times when while they were speaking ex cathedra and so clearly wrong or downright evil, that that doesn't count." The problem of separating the Office and the Man is that the Man occupies the Office, and everything history shows is that there is no guarantee.

Look, Mrs. P, the reason the deposit of the faith argument sets me off is twofold: one, it implies that the divine is somehow captured in amber and kept under lock and key. Idols don't have to be made of stone, they can be words or ideas as well, and we are commanded to worship God and not idols. The second reason is that it deviates very quickly into the authenticity/we're the only real ones type of argument, and then the next thing you know you are measuring how on a percentage basis others deviate from the whole truth, which you alone are the sole possessor of. That sets me off.

As far as the PB goes, again, she doesn't speak with infallible teaching authority, and so this too will pass. The beautiful thing to me about the Anglican tradition being rooted in common prayer is that you find a way to try not to kill each other, worship together, and you find that over time the one's who you thought were absolutely wrongheaded have an element of truth that you never considered.

Karl: well, I've often joked that our old parish worshipped the holy spirit, and the three persons were Karl Marx, Gloria Steinem, and Rachel Carson. But most of the rest of the Christian world isn't too happy with the HRC Church in elevating a human to the holy trinity, blessed though she is.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 25, 2008 08:16 AM

Steve-O, man your guns, and prepare for a broadside. It is coming. I've just got a lot of things to do right now.

Hey Abbot, wy don't you have some fun until I can return....

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 25, 2008 10:08 AM

To quote Tuco, "If you come to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 25, 2008 10:17 AM

And, Mrs. P., your new Delta Tau Chi nickname is "Costello."

;)

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 25, 2008 10:20 AM

Who's on first? St. Peter :-)

Steve-O,

I would suggest that Peter's commission -- while mentioned before the crucifixion by Christ -- is confirmed after the resurrection in John 21:15-17, in which his running away is forgiven, and he is told to feed the lambs, feed the sheep, and tend the sheep. There is certainly an irony in the fact that Peter, who is exceptionally fallible and timid, is nonetheless the one chosen to lead. But don't think it was a mistake; he is chosen to lead because his faith is the greatest.

As for papal infallibility and the 19th century, I also don't think it necessarily follows that because a doctrine was not laid out in ancient times, that it is necessarily untrue if proclaimed in later times. I take the Nicene creed to be doctrinally correct. I believe in the Bible. I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. None of these things were handed to us by Christ at the seashore at Capernaum. All of them were developed over time by the Church. And all of them (the creed, the contents of the Bible, the Trinity) were debated and disputed.

Nevertheless, I beleive them to be true, because I do not believe Christ intended his church to fail, or that he wanted to see us Christians endlessly dispute the meaning of what he taught. There are far too many pagans in need of Baptism.

I believe when He breathed the Holy Spirit into the apostles, it meant something. I believe when Christ granted the apostles the authority to loose and bind that they did, indeed, inherit the authority to loose and bind. And I believe when the Apostles confirmed Matthias to replace Judas, they did so with Christ's approval and authority -- even though he was not physically present at the time.

In that Christ did not return in the first century, I have to assume that he intended the church to carry on. I don't think he intended disputes to arise between the apostles, but when they couldn't be reasoned out in council that it didn't mean that the Church ended, or that there wasn't a correct answer.

Although Christ loved John, he addressed Peter uniquely on a number of occasions. Two thousand years later, we can argue what those words mean, but I don't think the Pope's interpretation is unreasonable. The see of Jerusalem was swept away, as was Alexandria, as was the Church of Ephesus. Constantinople fell under Muslim rule and survived only under duress and through compromise. If Christ's words to Peter do not imply unique authority (or at least survivability) to Rome, which alone conquered all of its conquerors, then I wonder what they do mean. I am truly puzzled as to what they could mean. If they were just Christ's private advice to Peter, then I wonder why the authors of Scripture bothered to put the incidents in.

Could Christ guarantee that Rome survives despite all of Peter's faults? I don't doubt that he could. If I believe him capable of redeeming all of my faults, so I ascribe a lot of power to him.

Posted by: The Abbot at January 25, 2008 11:17 AM

Steve,
Neither Quod super his nor Inter catera divinia are examples of infallible statements. The decree on the doctrine of the Assumption or of the Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, are--and they make it quite clear that the ex cathedra authority is being used.

As to the infallibility doctrine being a recent development, this is similar to the argument that the doctrine of the Assumption is a recent development because the Church has never officially proclaimed it in the past--but the natural response is that the doctrine has been an accepted part of Catholic tradition for centuries, and its being officially codified came about because the doctrine itself was under attack (this is certainly the case regarding the doctrine of the Assumption). The point was not to proclaim something new, but to preserve and safeguard something that had been believed from the beginning.

If one believes that every "jot and tittle" of Scripture is there for a reason, and rich with meaning, then one cannot help but consider the significance of the following:

--Peter is always named first in all the listings of the apostles (Judas is, naturally, named last);

--Peter is referred to as "the first Apostle" or "the first" in Matt. 10:2; as he was neither first in age nor in election, it's hard to understand this in any other way than in primacy or authority;

--Peter alone has a new name solemnly conferred by Christ, from Simon to "The Rock";

--Peter is the first to recognize and confess Christ's divinity;

--Peter is mentioned more times than any of the other apostles put together (191 times);

--It is from Peter's boat that Jesus teaches, and from his boat that the miraculous catch of fish comes;

--Peter is the first and only apostle to leap into the water and swim to Jesus;

--Peter was the first to enter the empty tomb; the fact that John reached the tomb first, yet deferred entry until Peter went in first is considered to be John's recognition of Peter's primacy;

--Peter works the first miracle after Christ's resurrection...

One could go on and on... Although James is shown acting with some authority in parts of Scripture, his significance scripturally speaking is nowhere near that of Peter's.

Posted by: Christine at January 25, 2008 12:34 PM

Dear Mr. Vegas,

Did your friends give you this name because they thought you kicked theology like a Las Vegas dancer? You must have great legs! I have always thought, as a whole, that men have nicer ankles than women.

Per:

"As to the issue of John and Jesus, the question still remains as to the meaning and nature of Logos, and those two mysterious statements John uses to begin and end his gospel with."

Can you flesh this out a bit more, please? I've forgotten what the issue was between John and Jesus.

Per:

A person who had no prior knowledge of church history or theology, or think that Christianity flows only from the confiines of the Lateran Walls, would also not necessarily know or recoginze the beginning one of the oldest prayers in Christianity, the Trisagion, "Agios o Theos, agios ischyros, agios athanatos, eleison imas." While I'm not at all comfortable with the last part that they added (which is a whole separate aside), the first part, which seems to be what you are taking umbrage with for being "gender neutral," is not new but very, very, very old."

First, yes you are correct that the Episcopal Church has, for the sake of it Millenium Development goals stations of the Cross exercise, has rewritten one of the oldest prayers in Christianity, the Trisagion. Doing that in the Catholic or Eastern Churches would be considered a grave offense as it causes confusion to the flock and gives scandal to the Church.

Since I would not know Latin if I fell over it, I am most familiar with the Trisagion in the Chaplet/novena -start it on Good Friday) :

Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

In the Chaplet, the Trisagion is paired with many other prayers and suplications that contain words like Our Father, your dearly beloved son, blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of your womb...

My gender complaint was with the entirety of the prayers said at the stations...note no gender anywhere....

"At the beginning of each station the group prays together:

"God you created us and call us to be in this world,
part of your creative force.
In Christ you teach us the way of salvation.
Help us to live radically in a broken world.
Send your Spirit upon us that we might be
instruments of your peace.

"Vocalizing the Millennium Development Goals: The leader will read the goal out loud at each station

"Reflection: Participants will reflect on each goal (see below)

"At the end of each station the group prays together:

"Holy God
Holy and Mighty
Holy Immortal One
Transform us
That we might transform the world

That is it for now...when we meet next we shall tackle the Full Deposit claim and the Holy Spirit...Get the jello ready. I prefer raspberry -either blue or red.

So Mr. Vegas, until then,

Costello.

.

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 25, 2008 02:23 PM

As usual there are 3 trillion spelling and grammatical errors. however the line "Since I would not know Latin if I fell over it, I am most familiar with the Trisagion in the Chaplet/novena -start it on Good Friday) :" should read

"Since I would not know Latin if I fell over it, I am most familiar with the Trisagion in the Chaplet of Divine Mercy (by the way Robbo, that is a wonderful prayer/novena -start it on Good Friday)

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 25, 2008 02:27 PM

Steve-O,

As for the percentages thing, that is a merely I shorthand I use to judge doctrine relative to Rome. It means that I can expect an Orthodox Christian, a Lutheran or an Anglican to agree with me in a certain percent of arguments (for instance, all affirm one Trinitarian god, with an incarnate Jesus Christ as its second person), as opposed to a Wiccan priestess who might well believe we serve a deeply flawed but occasionally benevolent goat-headed demonic Demiurge -- or, for that matter, Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise accepts just about 0% of Christianity, and I accept about 0% of Scientology. I do not mean to give him offense in saying it, and I take none if he says that I believe in 0% of what he believes in. We beleive differently. A Methodist might say I believe 70% of what he believes in, and the 30% difference renders me hellbound. I don't take offense at that, and might even agree on the percentages of what we have in common. I don't affirm that his accounting has any bearing on my salvation.

And neither is it meant to imply anything in terms of how I view his salvation, which is certainly not mine to decide. I can make a better case for me being in Hell than just about anyone, my beliefs notwithstanding. I believe a Baptist minister's baptism is as efficacious as that of the Pope's (and so Catholic doctrine affirms), and I believe that the ordinary evangelical Protestant in the pews stands an excellent chance of salvation indeed, if he does what the Bible asks of him.

But having said that, doctrine is not unimportant, and we become indifferentists at our peril.

Believing in Christ, for instance, as a relatively interesting Jewish moral philosopher who had a few good aphorisms but was hopelessly conditioned by His times, language, education and worldview and who was killed and probably not resurrected (consider, say, the works of John Shelby Spong or Dominic Crossan) is certainly of a different order than affirming Him to be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost from before eternity, and a person who fully took on our humanity in order to effect our salvation through an act of blood atonement.

That we live as Christ would have us live is critical to our salvation. But that we know who He is is also important, as that shapes the first thing; how we live. We might well be kind to strangers and animals, but for those of us with serious sins on our hands (and souls) -- and I count myself in that latter group -- we must know Who He Is in order to believe that He can transform. If Christ is merely a moral example, I will tell you He cannot save me, for I am a reprobate, and have ignored many good examples in my life. It matters to me that He knew me before eternity, that he can make water into wine, that he can heal the sick and cast out demons, that he rose from the dead -- because without those signs of his authority, I have no reason to believe my own terrible sins can be paid for. He can not only do all of those things, but, by God, he can even make me good.

And the doctrine is of one piece. You compromise any of it, you risk losing all of it. If you yield on doctrine, you may well cost souls.

I think the Anglican church 100 years ago believed almost exactly what Rome believes. I can read John Henry Newman's Anglican sermons and they are masterpieces of Catholic doctrine -- even, comparatively speaking, many of the "reformed" ones. I look at the Anglican church of 50 years ago and it believed almost exactly what Rome believes. I can read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and it is a masterpiece of Catholic doctrine -- even, comparatively speaking, the more "reformed" passages.

But I look at what is emanating from 815 2nd Avenue in New York, and I say I do not recognize it. It does not cheer me to say it.

Scripture, Reason and Tradition -- I say it served you well for five hundred years, but in the last fifty years, your church's leadership has thrown out Scripture and Tradition.

Katharine Jefforts Schori may well end up in heaven and Bernard Cardinal Law may well end up in hell. I wouldn't care to lay odds on it.

A church's doctrine may be perfect and its ministers may be reprobates. A church's doctrine may be imperfect and its ministers may be saintly. Doctrine does not guarantee salvation; I do not doubt that the Devil himself knows doctrine better than I do, and could write brilliant sermons that would make Aquinas weep, if it did not cause him pain to do so.

But knowledge and salvation, while they may not relate to each other all that much on the level of the individual soul, matter greatly when one is speaking of institutions. Even a blind squirrel may find a nut once and again. But a squirrel with both eyes and the sun shining overhead has a better chance.

Christ may save me despite my sins; but it would not only be better for me if I committed fewer of them, it would be better for me if I knew what they were to begin with. I can't believe that abortion is a sacrament or homosexuality is holy when the Bible and the church say differently, and always have. They'd have to have been very far wrong indeed for two thousand years -- the Apostles would have had to have listened very badly, taught their successors very poorly, and transcribed the books very carelessly to be wrong about things that early and that severely. And rather than Apostolic Succession and the Holy Spirit, I'd have to believe it was all a very bad game of telephone indeed.

Posted by: The Abbot at January 25, 2008 02:37 PM

Mrs. P:

"That's just me, Mr. Vegas" is a John Candy line from the movie Stripes, when he's trying to convince the naive farm boy to bet all his money on a ridiculously bad hand of poker, and John Candy was holding four kings.

1. The issue wasn't between John and Jesus, but between me and you, and the criticism of the original Episcopal prayer and that it affronted the sensibilities for not using the male pronoun to refer to God. I cited the beginning line and ending line of the Gospel of John, and asked your question back: if you only had those two lines, would you know the sex of God? My answer is, no, and why does it matter in the way that you were condemning the author of that Episcopal exercise for doing? Reading the beginning and the end in a seamless way produces an interesting result (in the same way, compare the first words as well as the first scene Jesus speaks in during his ministry to the first words and the first scene he speaks after the resurrection and you'll see what I mean.

2. Let's set aside confusing the flock and giving scandal to the Church, as we've already been over those points, my point about the Trisagion remains: I said I didn't like how they added a different ending, away from the protestation of humility to a desire for power, but my point still holds: the beginning of the prayer contains no reference to God's sex (as humans would think of it). Your original question of the elephant in the room, that the Episcopal author was trying to "mask" or "deneuter" the divine doesn't hold, because that itself is part of the original prayer.

3. Re not knowing Latin if one fell over it, it's hard if not impossible to make the claim for the complete possession of the entirety of the deposit of the faith, as if it was some sort of ark, and then brush away the issue of significant translational issues and challenges over two millenia. Falling over the Latin, and how things went from Aramaic to Greek to later Greek to Latin to later Latin to the vulgates is exactly the problem with claiming that the Lateran possesses the complete undiminished, unexpanded, unchanged faith, as if the faith were the original meter bar kept in a case of inert gas hidden in a vault in Paris. It's not something that can be captured and contained, and then to be used as a weapon to wound.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 25, 2008 04:25 PM

Dan:

The problem is, it reads, "I'm 100% right, and here, on a percentage basis, is how wrong other people are." While it's a great way to argue if you believe the divine has your back 100%, and is a Divine who's not on record for getting extremely pissed off when people make such distinctions about others, it's not a way to make friends.

I guess here's my difference: doctrine is important, doctrine helps us understand to a small degree the divine (in the ways that the divine has chosen to reveal), but doctrine is not the divine, or to be worshipped as such. There's a word for that: idolatry, and it's actually a commandment.

Is KJS a bit of a buffoon? I have no idea, I don't know her, haven't met her, haven't read of any her works. I do know one person who has, who did, and trusts her, so that's good enough for me. Re moral drift, has the American church drifted? Perhaps, I don't know. It's interesting that during the same time period Rome has been constantly complaining about the American Catholic church, so maybe the problem isn't an Episcopal/Catholic one but rather an American one. And if the Episcopal church has a bad couple of decades, has not the HRC had a few of its own? Who misled more souls and brought greater scandal on their Church: Bishop Spong, or Pope Urban II? Do the scandal and misdirection of souls compare? I wouldn't care to lay odds on it.

I'm going to rise above the low-hanging fruit of abortion, homosexuality, and Apostolic Succession combination generally, but say merely to combine the Succession argument that to base the whole shebang on the fulcrum of Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) is dicey at best. To answer Christine and Rob's comments together, the problems with A.S. are not just the specifics of when it was broken (ie Avignon, an insurmountable problem for absolutists) or the presence of truly evil people (too many to name handily, although our pal Borgia can suffice) in the position of being able to speak ex cathedra, is that you can't make the argument that Pope's have always been able to speak infallibly about doctrine, except for when they didn't. The two late medieval/early modern ones I cited were indeed teachings on faith in how the faith would and should be practiced in the world, which is the same result. Authorizing the spreading of the Gospel at the point of a sword was a grave and horrible declaration of faith. The actions of the individual and the nature of the office cannot be separated in that way. And the claim that Pope's have alwaysspoken infallibly on doctrine, but just only did so explicitly relatively recently, is a legal fiction equal to the discovery of the right of privacy in the penumbras of the Ninth Amendment. It's a lawyer's trick.

RE Christine's point about Peter, I refer back to my original post with this Sunday's Episcopal reading from 1 Corinthians 1:10-18. Your list is excellent and comprehensive, and completely misses the point (or makes my point): how do we assess scriptural significance can be driven by different agendas. I could come up with an equally good list for Mary M., for example, and of course it raises the tricky question of what do we make of Paul? But that's a separate argument altogether, and I have to make dinner.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at January 25, 2008 05:05 PM

Steve-O,

I will retract my habit of using percentages as a basis for understanding doctrinal differences if they offend. Naturally I believe Rome to be correct in all matters of doctrine, and I believe it to be actually possible for a church to indeed make the claim -- I am a Catholic. I view all religions and sects in light of that. If that upsets you, I will certainly apologize for my methods and my lack of tact, but not for my beliefs. How can I? If it upsets God, He will perhaps inform me, and hopefully sooner rather than later. He knows I am unprofitable; I do hope that I still manage to be of service. I will try to avoid speaking in terms of percentages.

I do not believe that I am guilty of idolatry with regard to doctrine -- worshipping doctrine rather than God -- but to tell you the truth, I had never considered it before. I will do so. It is an interesting question. I would say that perhaps, that I venerate doctrine and worship God; much as I venerate the Cross and worship Christ. I do take the doctrine very seriously; I hope it leads to God. But more important I think is the conversion of heart that it works. It is hard to affirm the doctrine -- particularly, it has forced me to consider actions of my own in the light of them being sinful rather than simply ill-advised. Certainly I view the doctrine as being, like the cross, heavy and difficult. But I will conform myself to it utterly as I believe the Church is what it says it is.

As for the Borgia popes, for sake of argument, what doctrinal differences do you have with Pope Alexander VI? He may have bought cardinals for his election; he used the Papacy as an office to enrich himself and his family, and he was doubtless guilty of simony on a magnificent scale. Certainly he is painted by history as a bad man, but I'd have to consider his doctrinal legacy to judge whether he introduced anything into the teaching of the church that was incorrect. I'd be happy to spend some time on it.

As for Urban II, I'd say that his authorization of the crusades was unusual, but I'm not sure it did not fall under the concept of a just war, and I do believe that such a thing is possible. Did it lead souls into perdition? Perhaps. But so does Jihad. Today we have neat little boxes for "church" and "state" and "secular" and "divine". In the twelfth century, things were by no means so clear cut. Urban had the power to act and he did, for good or for ill. I guess I'd ask, would you rather the West just surrendered? Handed over Jerusalem without a fight? How about Vienna? Or Paris? I honestly can't say I know the answer to it, but I'd suggest that the history is a little more complicated than we think it is, sitting in judgment some 900 years later.

As for Spong -- who is doubtless a heretic -- I wasn't gratuitously bashing the Episcopal church there. I also threw Crossan in -- a Catholic priest who went secular (not that there is anything wrong with that). Crossan being a Catholic priest and Spong being an Episcopal bishop? Not a dime's worth of difference to me. They're both heretics, and they're both promoting ideas of Christ that conflict with the bost basic doctrines of the church, expressed in the Nicene Creed. They are wrong. Period. They are heretics. Period.

As for Avignon; I'd have to consider it at length to determine if Apostolic succession was broken. It is certainly a good case to raise. I'll let you know what I turn up.

As for your point about Scriptural interpretation being driven by different agendas and different flawed interpretations, I guess I'd say that you have made the case wonderfully against Sola Scriptura. :-)

Benedict loves you, Steve-o. Embrace him. :-)

Posted by: The Abbot at January 25, 2008 06:09 PM

Dan---you are, of course, a scholar and a gentleman. And it is a singular privilege to throw dinner rolls at the table with you and Mrs. P. And all the while when I was typing, I had the Veggie Tales singing "God is bigger than the bogeyman" as Mr. Small was home with croup and that was the only thing keeping him happy. Remember: God is bigger than godzila, or the monsters on tee-vee!

Posted by: Steve-O at January 25, 2008 07:34 PM

Your list is excellent and comprehensive, and completely misses the point

Sorry; I thought I had spoken directly to your point. You had asked, "what is special about Peter relative for example to James, Jesus' brother, leading the Church in Jerusalem?" I offered some scriptural examples of Peter's primacy among the apostles (the list is, by the way, not at all comprehensive; for the sake of brevity, I included only a handful). How can anyone claim it is insignificant that Christ says to Peter in the Garden of Olives, "Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren"? Out of all the apostles, Satan has marked out Peter for special attack--and Christ has placed a special burden on Peter to teach and lead his fellow apostles.

It is true that agenda can drive scriptural interpretation--look at the way Protestants refuse to pay attention to Jesus' teaching on divorce, or on the Eucharist ("for My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink")--but the proofs for Peter's primacy are so many and so clear (see complete list here) that to write them off would be to perform an act of exegetical acrobatics indeed.

Historically speaking, the bishops of Rome in the early church recognized their authority and acted accordingly: Pope Clement settled a problem in the Church of Corinth in the 1st century; those accused of heresy in the first few centuries appealed to the bishop of Rome; The early church Fathers often attest to the authority of the Roman See; and the bishop of Rome had the decisive say at the general councils.

Infallibility is a large and complicated topic, difficult to delve into in a comments box—but it deals with the pope’s teaching on doctrine specifically with regard to faith or morals. Pope Innocent III’s Quod super his and Alexander’s three bulls Inter Caetera were primarily political documents, the first protecting infidel rights during the Crusade (yes, you read that right), the second on colonization redrawing the boundaries of Portugal; they did not speak to doctrine.

Posted by: Christine at January 27, 2008 05:35 AM

Dear Steve-O,

Ceasefire...white flag and all that good pacifist stuff...

I have been giving our little war much thought and for what it is, here are my sincere thoughts...fear not I do not have my Greek lexicon at my side as not only is Latin is dead to me, Greek is greek to me.

I spent 37 years of my life in the Church you are now heading into. I was a fourth generation member. My ancestors were educated and taught (as well as siblings and cousins) at some of the finest Episcopalian schools, colleges and universities this country has to offer. I think that I understood the Episcopalian Church and how it operated fairly well. I've only been Catholic for 8 so, there, it would be more than accurate to describe me as ignorant to how the Church operates and functions. I like ignorant. It's something I'm really good at, but I digress...

As far as abusive Catholic priests go, I can match you toe to toe with the abusive Episcopalian priests who attempted their level best to ruin my life...and my chances for salvation. From the rector of my home parish Trinity Episcopal Southport, who when my mother sought help from when she had been abandoned by her husband and had 5 little kids at home ranging from the age of 4 to 13 and he said to her, "I can't help you unless you have him here." Clearly that priest's counsel hinged on what the definition of "abandoned" is. It was later (many, many years) learned that he was a alcoholic and a closet homosexual. His boyfriend was the private chef he employed in the rectory. So let us be generous (or completely nasty depending on your outlook) here. My protestant female friends enjoy telling me (often) Catholic priests are incapable of helping married people with their troubles because they've never been married. Their cellibacy renders them incapable of understanding a marriage. But protestant priests can truly help married people. So, perhaps this Episcopalian priest's homosexual lifestyle with its obvious lack of marriage and child-rearing experience rendered him incapable of understanding the plight of my mother " A woman whose husband had left her and the kids to take up residence with another women in a posh NY apartment and sending all the charge account bills home for her to pay for.

And then there was the rector when I was still a young bride and preparing a luncheon at the rectory for the bishop. In the midst of my preperations I walked into the rectory kitchen - I had been over at the church's kitchen for a while- to find him standing there with his dog collar unbuttoned, no trousers on, just boxers, knee socks and sock suspenders. Now that's a look that makes me swoon and commit adultery.

And then if you like I can go on about the rector who molested the choir boys, but I shall refrain because actually because, frankly, in our war it doesn't matter. Also I did say this was a ceasefire.

What matters in our war is Truth. You say the Full Deposit of Faith argument sets you off. I'm sorry that it does. I'm an old ad man and unique selling features have long been proven to work. The Deposit of Faith can only be claimed by the Catholic Church. More than that, the Faith has not been cast in amber. It is the opposite. It is alive. Very much alive. Look at the bible (the Catholic Church did give us the bible and then the protestant world wields it mightily to make their claims that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, but again I digress), any Council of the Church, any papal bull or encyclical of Faith and you will soon see this is most definitely not true. The Church wrestles with ideas. It wrestles with God.

But more than any written document the Church has put forward, look no further than to the Mass. To the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, more precisely. It is from there all the Truth about God emanates from.

I will not mince words here. I think the English Reformation was evil. And the that was evil perpetrated was not divorce, the trashing of all Church lands and martyring of priests and indivuals. That was all just a by product of the great Evil. The great evil was the heresy it promoted. The heresy, and it remains very much alive to this day, is denying the Truth contained in the Eucharist. The English Reformation has tried its level best to separate the faithful from the Faith of our Fathers. Read the 39 Articles and you will see it there clear as day, though you will find priests, bishops and laypeople that says it still occurs. But how if the Church in its founding documents denies it? Also to get this heresy to take hold among among the faithful, it required threat (often made good on-- even on teenagers and pregnant women) of poverty, imprisonment, and death.

Now, an analogy, ... if a traveler sets their journey to a compass, and begins with the settings off by one degree, early on in the journey, that's really no big deal. But as the journey progresses being off just one degree becomes a larger and larger problem. By the end of the journey the problem is huge because the traveler is completely lost as he is hundreds and hundreds of miles off course.

The English Church, by denying the Truth of transubstantiation, started its journey with the settings off. Now, almost 500 years later it has found itself far, far off course. It is being tossed and blown about by every passing fancy of the age. But besides that problem, there's a much greater one and this is the one that caused me to leave.

What happens to the traveler at the end of the journey within the Episcopal Church? The end of the journey is Heaven's Gates. But the Church is off course. Way off course. Does the traveler reach the end they desired?

The Catholic Church teaches that they still are capable but that it is much harder for them to do so.

I left the Episcopalian Church no reason larger than I no longer trusted them with my salvation.

I want to go to Heaven.

Edmund Campion is a fellow I've hooked onto for obvious reasons. He was put to death by Elizabeth I because he clung to the Faith of the Fathers rather than the new Faith she had started. His words upon his conviction and at his execution are as relevant today as they were 500 years ago because the Faith is alive :

"There is much joy in the book [ Edmund Campion, A life by Evelyn Waugh ] and much which helps our spirits to exult—much which can help us to "hold fast "—eg., on page 128
—"There will never want in England men that will have care of their own salvation, nor such as shall advance to other men's; neither shall this Church ever fail so long as priests and pastors shall be found for their sheep, rage man or devil never so much."

"At the end of Campion's trial, his cry of conviction is matched only with that of St. Stephen's speech before those who had sentenced him to die: "In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors—all the ancient priests, bishops and kings—all that was once the glory of England, the isle of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter. For what have we taught, however you may qualify it with the odious name of treason, that they did not uniformly teach? To be condemned with these lights—not of England only, but of the world—by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and glory to us."

"Again, on the scaffold, St. Edmund Campion, deals gently but firmly with those Anglican clerics who would, at the very hour of death itself, try to pervert him from the Faith of our Fathers, page 196: "An Anglican clergyman attempted to direct his prayers but he answered gently—'Sir, you and I are not one in religion, wherefore I pray you to content yourself. I bar none of prayer; but I desire them that are of the household of faith to pray with me, and in mine agony to say one Creed.’

"As Campion made his final prayers, commending his soul to the "great God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ," whom he had served so well, and written about with such fervor in such sonorous, Ciceronian Latin, those who stood by called upon him to pray in English "but he replied with great mildness that 'he would pray to God in a language which they both well understood.'

"St. Edmund Campion's fame has burned with unique warmth and brilliance, which have resounded through the centuries. So the Church survived, in rather the same way as it does today, "regarded by the world as, at the best, something Gothic and slightly absurd, like a ghost or a family curse." Then, as now, the story of the martyrs lends us strength."

Steve-0, my best to you...and in the future let's spar over my favorite thing:

Who wrote Shakespeare...

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 27, 2008 10:10 AM

Well, we all know Shakespeare was a closet Catholic... :)

Robbo, how are the RCIA classes going? I think the world needs an update on the Tiber-crossing...

Posted by: Christine at January 27, 2008 11:46 AM

See what fun it is to spar over Shakespeare? He was writing only 2 generations after the death of Thomas More and there were a lot of recusants in Straford-on-Avon so...

Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 27, 2008 05:08 PM

¥á¥¿¥ÜŒ�²ß ¥·¥ç¥Ã¥Ô¥ó¥°–˜¡¡¬F½ð»¯  ºáäºÖÐÈA½Ö ܞš RAID�Í¾É ¥Ç©`¥¿�ÍÔª  ¥Ç©`¥¿�Í¾É ¥Ç©`¥¿�Í¾É ºáäº ÙUÙJ  ¥Ç©`¥¿�Í¾É  ¥¦¥§¥Ç¥£¥ó¥°¥É¥ì¥¹  Ì«ê–¹â°këŠ ²»„Ó®bµ£±£¥í©`¥ó  FX  ºáäºÖÐÈA½Ö ¥Æ¥ì¥Þ©`¥±¥Æ¥£¥ó¥°  ½Y»éָ݆  »áÉçÔOÁ¢  ¥¦¥£©`¥¯¥ê©`¥Þ¥ó¥·¥ç¥ó ¥¦¥§¥Ç¥£¥ó¥° ¥Ð¥¤¥¢¥°¥é ¤ªÒŠºÏ¤¤

 

RMT ¥Ç©`¥¿�;ɠ ÖêʽͶÙY ឤê áž¾ß ½Y»éʽ¡¡Ñݳö  ¥¦¥§¥Ç¥£¥ó¥°¥É¥ì¥¹  ½é×o   ÖÎòY ¤ªÒŠºÏ¤¤ ×ÓŒm½îÄ[  ¥Õ¥í©`¥ê¥ó¥° ¥ª©`¥¯ ͶÙY ¤ªÈ¡¤ê¼Ä¤»¥°¥ë¥á º¦³æñl³ý   ¥­¥ã¥Ã¥·¥ó¥°  ¥À¥¤¥Ó¥ó¥°  ÙUÙJ  ²»„Ó®b ‚ù„ÕÕûÀí

Posted by: koko at July 28, 2008 12:28 AM