"Bishop" Schori preaches total apostasy

[gurneyhalleck1]

Go follow her and read all the other stuff she has said; trust me, friend, her opinions diverge from Catholicism…plenty

I consider myself a conservative pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-pope Catholic, but for the life of me I can’t see where what she is teaching here disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Go follow her and read all the other stuff she has said; trust me, friend, her opinions diverge from Catholicism…plenty

She is not Catholic…she is a Bishop of the Episcopal Church…so why the concern? I just don’t get it.

 

[GKC]

When I asked: “Is it only Christians who can know ‘truth’”?", you responded:

So, that does eliminate 3/4 of the world from the possibility of salvation, according to your theology.

But MUST they know Christ as we know him, or are there other ways? If you are right, what about all those who have never heard the teachings of Jesus, or were not Jews in earlier times? Are they out of luck? Why would God allow that?

I said: “In what I have read of other cultures and beliefs, I have found “truths”, many of which are very similar to the Christian versions. Where did those come from, if not from God?” Your response:

Ah-ha! The law, which comes from…God, right? So those truths have been revealed to people who have not been exposed to Jesus…so then why cannot they be saved if they accept and live according to those truths? Is God playing games with some people, giving them a part of the answer but not the whole thing? Teasing them, in a way?

I said: “Can God not speak to non-Christians? We know He has spoken to and through the Jews.”

ONLY spoken through His son? Are you sure? That is not what you indicate above. If that is so, why only speak to some, and not all? Is God that unfair? And then you apparently say that God no longer even speaks to the Jews, the Chosen, the people of the Covenant and of the religion of Jesus? WOW!

I asked: “Would God write off 3/4 of the world because they have not proclaimed Jesus as Lord?”

If Jesus did this, then (again) why not make that known to the whole world at once? God could do that, you know. So, if God speaks to others separately and they in turn embrace and live by God’s word (The Jews, Muslims, ??), but because they have not done so through Jesus that will be a sin? Whose sin? Why?

To my question about whether the keys to the Kingdom are available to a select few, you quoted:

But He is apparently unwilling to share those keys, according to your theology. Heaven help us!

To my statement: “If that is what you believe, then you do not see the Christian God as the universal, all-encompassing God. You really see Him as the early Jews did, as their personal God who is stronger and better than the other gods. So much for monotheism”

You said:

Let’s think about this. On one hand we have the One God, but who is really three separate versions of God, and who can appear and act independent of each other? Okay. Compare that with God, Allah, Yahweh, different names for the same SINGLE deity. (We can leave out Buddha, since Guatama was a human being and a wisdom teacher, not a God; and Pan, who was one of the pantheon of Greek/Roman gods. Not in the same arena.) So, yes, if a monotheist is one who can claim the concept of one God in three persons, I see no problem with viewing God, Allah, Yahweh, and Elohim and other titular derivations as one and the same.

NOTE: There is an interesting old story by Arthur C. Clarke called “The Nine Billion Names of God.” The premise was that there were (are) that many different titles for the same Supreme Being, some of which were yet to be discovered. You can find it on-line (no longer under a copyright).

And when the real Names were enumerated, recall what happened.

And there is Clarke’s “The Star”. Not the man I go to for theological speculation.

GKC

 

[TriuneUnity]

So, that does eliminate 3/4 of the world from the possibility of salvation, according to your theology.

It eliminates those who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Savior.

But MUST they know Christ as we know him, or are there other ways?

They must know Him as Scripture reveals Him. He does not reveal Himself anywhere else except in His word and in His sacraments.

If you are right, what about all those who have never heard the teachings of Jesus, or were not Jews in earlier times? Are they out of luck? Why would God allow that?

I assume by Jews of earlier times you mean those who lived before Christ’s incarnation. Those Jews were saved in the same manner as we are today; by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for their sins. They were given revelation of a sort different than the New Testament Church, as they were given the promises and shadows of a coming Messiah. Since the Christ has come, like all mankind, they are required to repent and believe the gospel.

Ah-ha! The law, which comes from…God, right? So those truths have been revealed to people who have not been exposed to Jesus…so then why cannot they be saved if they accept and live according to those truths? Is God playing games with some people, giving them a part of the answer but not the whole thing? Teasing them, in a way?

Because the Law does not have the power to save. The Law reveals to mankind what God requires in order to be holy in His sight. The Law is a reflection of God’s own moral character. Although it is epitomized in the Ten Commandments, it is also written into the human soul, because the soul is created in God’s image. This is why other religions bear moral teachings similar to the prophets and Jesus, because it is universal. Since mankind is fallen, and corrupted by sin, he is unable to keep the Law of God, however. That is why mankind needs a Savior. The Savior took upon Himself mankind’s transgressions and bore the wrath of God due them. He also obeyed the Law perfectly in our place. Through faith in His person and work, we are united to Christ and are given the gift of salvation. The good news of what Christ has done to save us from our inability to keep the Law is not universal or written into man’s soul. It is revealed in the gospel, which must be preached in order to be heard, heard in order to be believed, and believed on in order to benefit from.

ONLY spoken through His son? Are you sure? That is not what you indicate above.

What do you mean what I indicate above?

If that is so, why only speak to some, and not all? Is God that unfair?

Because He chose to reveal it only to some. First to the Jews, and now to all mankind through the incarnate Christ. God is not unfair. God is just. God is not required to save anyone. If God were fair, we would all suffer eternal punishment because of our sins. That He saves even one person means He is far more merciful than either you or I can fathom. Not a single person deserves it.

And then you apparently say that God no longer even speaks to the Jews, the Chosen, the people of the Covenant and of the religion of Jesus? WOW!

No longer? Of course He speaks to the Jews, as He does to every tribe, race, and tongue. Through Christ, whose covenant is universal - If He is believed on.

If Jesus did this, then (again) why not make that known to the whole world at once? God could do that, you know. So, if God speaks to others separately and they in turn embrace and live by God’s word (The Jews, Muslims, ??), but because they have not done so through Jesus that will be a sin? Whose sin? Why?

The word of God given to the Jews is truly His word. However, they are unable to live by it, because they are sinners. They also need a savior from their inability to adhere to God’s will. As for the Muslims, they never received God’s word - the Qu’ran is not it. However, they do have their own consciences to follow. But they are unable to keep it, either. Hence, they have a need for the Savior.

But He is apparently unwilling to share those keys, according to your theology. Heaven help us!

God doesn’t share His authority with anyone. Why would He? Other gods do not exist. He can’t share His glory with something that doesn’t exist.

Let’s think about this. On one hand we have the One God, but who is really three separate versions of God, and who can appear and act independent of each other? Okay. Compare that with God, Allah, Yahweh, different names for the same SINGLE deity. (We can leave out Buddha, since Guatama was a human being and a wisdom teacher, not a God; and Pan, who was one of the pantheon of Greek/Roman gods. Not in the same arena.) So, yes, if a monotheist is one who can claim the concept of one God in three persons, I see no problem with viewing God, Allah, Yahweh, and Elohim and other titular derivations as one and the same.

Your understanding of the Trinity is skewed. Aside from that, however, your proposition is irrational. Yaweh cannot be Allah, because Yaweh has revealed He is three Persons in one God. Allah denies being three persons in one god. That would be contradictory.

 

[Yggdrasil]

John Paul’s statement is not radical. The Jews don’t believe in the Trinity either. Muslims profess to believe in the God of Abraham just like the Jews. Both faiths have not accepted all that has been revealed to Christians, that God is Triune.

Then they’re different gods. After the Revelation of Christ, there begins a profound disagreement about the nature of God. All three of the “Abrahamic” religions make mutually exclusive claims. They are not the same. If you believe, as Vatican II has declared, that the Jews and the Muslims “are related in various ways” to the Christians, then it shouldn’t be all too difficult to take a charitable understanding of what Bp. Schori said about God’s promise to Ishmael and Hagar. (Note that I said John Paul II’s statement “appears radical,” not “is radical.” You offer the benefit of the doubt, however, only to your own side).

As John Paul himself so eloquently put it: “may St. John the Baptist protect Islam!”

 

[Third_Day]

You see, the problem is that your continue to denounce her without having heard the rest of the clip. Your objections are not based in what she actually said, but what you imagine she is saying.

Zach

When did I denounce her? I said in the original post’ “In fairness to her,** I would need to hear all of the talk **to see if she is “quite” Catholic”
Is all of her talk available? If it is, does she talk about invincible ignorance? That must be part of her talk or she is preaching univeralism

 

[Third_Day]

=chaunceygardner;6505015]And that is wrong why?

Universalism teaches that all are automatically saved. In Universalism there is no need for dogma, a Church or truth.

It sounds like Benedict (when he was Ratzinger) is saying that we have to hold the doctrinal line or the Church loses the force of “truth” and can no longer be the exclusive gatekeeper to salvation. Is it only Christians who can know “truth”?

Truth can only come from God. Truth has been only revealed to Christians through Jesus Christ.

Why would God not want ALL to have access to the truth? In what I have read of other cultures and beliefs

,
He does. That is why He sent His only begotten Son.

I have found “truths”, many of which are very similar to the Christian versions. Where did those come from, if not from God?

How do you know, infallibly, that what you have found is the “truth” and not a “lie?”

I am most intrigued by his line about “good” Christian or “good” Moslem. “How are WE to know”?, he asks. Well, it is God who needs to know and who will decide that for each of us.

God has revealed what we need to know through Jesus Christ and His Church.

We learn this by what God tells us, and not only us but the entire world

.
How has God told this to you?

Why do we think that God only speaks to a certain group of people who descended from a small Palestinian Jewish sect 2000 years ago?

It’s called “faith”.

Can God not speak to non-Christians? We know He has spoken to and through the Jews.

Yes He can. God spoke to Cornelius, a pagan, in Acts 10 of the bible. God was pleased by his prayers and alms. But God sent Peter to Cornelius so that he could be baptized and come into the Church.

Would God write off 3/4 of the world because they have not proclaimed Jesus as Lord?

Those that do not know Christ, through no fault of their own, will be judged by the natural law written on their hearts. But this is no guarantee of eternal life. Jesus told his apostles to preach what he had taught them to the entire world. Our best chance for salvation is to know the correct way to salvation. That was given to us by the Son of God.

That is very difficult to accept, and seems very parochial, selfish and terribly biased. It is like saying God only belongs to us, and we are the only ones with the keys to heaven

.
God gives everyone the grace to come to the truth but not all accept that grace. He gave us a teaching Church, sacraments of grace, His written word. What else do you want?

If that is what you believe, then you do not see the Christian God as the universal, all-encompassing God. You really see Him as the early Jews did, as their personal God who is stronger and better than the other gods. So much for** monotheism**.

You list yourself as a “disciple of Jesus”. Is that a denomination or a belief?
You said “So much for monotheism” and you wrote “the other gods”. Do you believe in more than One God?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Looking at her record and what she’s done to so many Anglicans, the massive behemoth lawsuits she has leveled across this country forcing Anglican conservative parishes to fold up, go broke, and fight for their lives, the liberal theology she has condoned or dished-out, the damage she’s done to the relationship her denomination has with the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the sheer chaos that has ensued since she took over, do you really need to ask that question? Have you ever considered that maybe Catholics also care about our other brothers and sisters in Christ? I care about Anglians, Lutherans, and Orthodox, and other Christians besides the Catholic Church. To see a group of Christians in a downward spiral into total heterodoxy and theological oblivion, to see them attack their brethren with litigation, and to see the horrible rebellion she has brought on, I think your question is easily-answered.

She is not Catholic…she is a Bishop of the Episcopal Church…so why the concern? I just don’t get it.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Then they’re different gods. After the Revelation of Christ, there begins a profound disagreement about the nature of God. All three of the “Abrahamic” religions make mutually exclusive claims. They are not the same. If you believe, as Vatican II has declared, that the Jews and the Muslims “are related in various ways” to the Christians, then it shouldn’t be all too difficult to take a charitable understanding of what Bp. Schori said about God’s promise to Ishmael and Hagar. (Note that I said John Paul II’s statement “appears radical,” not “is radical.” You offer the benefit of the doubt, however, only to your own side).

As John Paul himself so eloquently put it: “may St. John the Baptist protect Islam!”

Of course if pastoral Councils [combined with a liberal read on them] and the private statements of a Pope actually had any weight equivalent to something such as Scripture, the Council of Trent, or Vatican I, then maybe this argument could be made.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Of course if pastoral Councils [combined with a liberal read on them] and the private statements of a Pope actually had any weight equivalent to something such as Scripture, the Council of Trent, or Vatican I, then maybe this argument could be made.

Well, sure, and Bishop Schori speaking extemporaneously at an apparent Q&A session in a chapel somewhere doesn’t quite carry the same weight as Scripture either. My argument is that she can’t be said to have “preached total apostasy” based on a three-minute YouTube clip, especially since similar ideas to hers have been expressed by the Catholic Church in what was labled a “dogmatic constitution,” and also by her most beloved pope of the past half-century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bishop Schiori is an easy target because she’s so over-the-top quirky, liberal, and a female “bishop” so it’s easy to be bugged by her; I know I am. But the Episcopal Church has been a mess since the 70’s and has steadily created a chaotic and heterodox environment that gave birth to folks like Schiori and Robinson being power players. To criticize Schiori one must also look at the entirety of the Episcopal Church over the last 30 plus years and see its decline. The continuing Anglicans had the wisdom in the 70’s to see things were going downhill with the prayer book, women’s ordination, etc. Men like Spong poisoned the pot and became the prominent voices of the Episcopal Church through the 80’s. Spong taught that the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, that the Gospels were “sheer make-believe,” in numerous writings he flat out denies the historicity of Christ Himself as a real person, claimed religion to be a “prison,” and he overall presented a gay rights agenda and more social tinkering ideas as real Christianity. Spong was well-respected in many circles of the Episcopal Church in the 80’s and 90’s. As far back as the 60’s we see guys like James Pike stirring the pot with abortion rights, LGBT rights, wanting to ordain gays, wanting to ordain women, having radical and bizarre beliefs about Scripture and the Church, etc. Pike called for a liberation theology agenda, protests, sit-in type nonsense and plenty of agitation. He wanted to turn the Episcopal Church into a hippy haven. And he succeeded.

Schiori is just the 2000’s contemporary evolution of this slowly-unraveling Hydra of theology in which there is no such thing as evil except outright murder and kidnapping. Nothing is a sin. Don’t focus on sin. That’s an outdated notion. Just focus on love. It’s a Metallica gospel: “nothing else matters”

These are the kinds of things one can see in the Episcopal Church lately:

A Shinto Shrine in the church of Saint John the Divine, New York complete with a “Christa” statue (a female Jesus)

A recent Mother Goddess worship event at an Episcopal Church in Asheville, in the south, complete with Equinox prayers, candles lit, flowers and middle-aged ladies dressed like Stevie Nicks

A lesbian bishop elected in Southern California

Rev. Julie Blake Fisher, a priestess rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Kent, Ohio made an Episcopal priestess Barbie

Father Michael Barlowe, an open homosexual “married” to a partner, is considered the front runner to be the new bishop of Utah, making him the third openly-active homosexual to be bishop. I’ve heard some liberal Episcopalians in here say: “there are only two openly gay bishops in the entire United States, hardly a thread…” looks like they’re cropping up steady as she goes…

A parish in Hanford, CA where a native american female shaman was invited to do prayers around a totem pole and give winter blessings. All the congregation participated as she invoked Indian chants and rituals. This is 20 minutes from my house in the “conservative” central valley of California.

C.S. Lewis once said in Miracles, chapter 8, “The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance. If He were the truth, then we could really say that all the Christian images of kingship were a historical accident of which our religion ought to be purged.” The Episcopal Church embraces pantheism, pansexuality, and apparently in a few squirrely parishes, the god Pan himself…with TEC anything is possible.

Bishop Schiori is not the only problem TEC. TEC is far left and extreme enough to embrace her. What came first the chicken or the egg? We can’t blame Schiori completely for this craziness. The Episcopal Church has been in a fog spiritually for decades.

 

[DharmaBum]

Gurney, I’m surprised that you would continue to espouse such opinions as if your own house was clean. Again I would question how it is that you could sit on a throne of judgment against a community of 7 million CHRISTIAN believers. Are you qualified to do that?

 

[DharmaBum]

To be honest, I’ve read all I need to in your posts to see where you are coming from and to know that I won’t change your views. I will pray for you and I know that your mean spirited diatribes against fellow bretheren are not the norm from your peers. May God bless you and keep you.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

And why do we care what Joseph Smith said?.. Is it not the same question? By what authority does she have that we even care? I think Yasser Arafat had things to say too…funny thing is I don’t recall them…likely because I never listened…

 

[GKC]

Gurney, I’m surprised that you would continue to espouse such opinions as if your own house was clean. Again I would question how it is that you could sit on a throne of judgment against a community of 7 million CHRISTIAN believers. Are you qualified to do that?

Perhaps the nature of historic Christianity itself permits a comparison and judgment. But, as I have said, Anglicans/Episcopalians are a motley crew. Not sure where the 7 million figure comes from, though.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Looking at her record and what she’s done to so many Anglicans, the massive behemoth lawsuits she has leveled across this country forcing Anglican conservative parishes to fold up, go broke, and fight for their lives, the liberal theology she has condoned or dished-out, the damage she’s done to the relationship her denomination has with the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the sheer chaos that has ensued since she took over, do you really need to ask that question? Have you ever considered that maybe Catholics also care about our other brothers and sisters in Christ? I care about Anglians, Lutherans, and Orthodox, and other Christians besides the Catholic Church. To see a group of Christians in a downward spiral into total heterodoxy and theological oblivion, to see them attack their brethren with litigation, and to see the horrible rebellion she has brought on, I think your question is easily-answered.

And, of course, there is her taste in miters.

GKC

 

[Yggdrasil]

Gurney, I’m surprised that you would continue to espouse such opinions as if your own house was clean. Again I would question how it is that you could sit on a throne of judgment against a community of 7 million CHRISTIAN believers. Are you qualified to do that?

I wonder the same thing, Gurney. Your ecumenical bonhomie on this forum extends far and wide, and (much to your credit) you are openly critical of the deficiencies in your own Church. You paint the Episcopal Church, however, with an incredibly broad brush of vitriol, and you continue to unfairly parade her exceptions around as the rule. Right now the Episcopal Church is trending liberal indeed, but this does not mean that your caricature of it is anywhere near an accurate picture. You aren’t quite being fair. The bottom line is that your garden variety Episcopalian parish is probably only slightly more liberal than the average RC church in the United States. (I will concede that the ecclesiastics in the Romish Communion have the far superior track record concerning public condemnation of abortion—nevertheless, the infamous 54% statistic says a lot about how independent-minded are the people in the pews).

Personally, I’m a country mile from being Bp. Schori’s biggest fan, but she’s not the bringer of “a Metallica gospel” any more than Benedict XVI is a heretic—and yet there are popular sedevacantist websites that promote the notion! Perhaps the Roman Church is trending conservative, albeit with everyone setting themselves up as arbiters of orthodoxy: a sliding gray scale of conservatism.

(“Metallica” passes spell-check? )

 

[Third_Day]

=Yggdrasil;6509018] Right now the Episcopal Church is trending liberal indeed,

What is the official Episcopal Church doctrine on abortion, gay marriage, ,cloning, stem cells? Is their an official doctrine that states that marriage is indissolvable? Is there an offical teaching that masturbation and fornication and contraception are grave sins? Does the Episcopal Church have any type of Catechism where the tenets of the faith are etched in stone?

While there are Catholics in the pews and clergy in place of authority that are sinners, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are pure and do not change with the times.

 

[Yggdrasil]

What is the official Episcopal Church doctrine on abortion, gay marriage, ,cloning, stem cells? Is their an official doctrine that states that marriage is indissolvable? Is there an offical teaching that masturbation and fornication and contraception are grave sins? Does the Episcopal Church have any type of Catechism where the tenets of the faith are etched in stone?

Protestant morality is largely Bible-based. The stories of Onan and Sodom were not jettisoned along with the Wisdom literature. This is why there is an incredible amount of healthy debate going on in the entire Anglican Communion regarding homosexuality. The Bible has weathered an impressive amount of textual scrutiny over the last hundred or so years, beginning with Wellhausen and continuing even today. Our present understanding of Scripture is vastly different than that of the Reformers—we can’t back turn back the clock on scholarship, nor can we ignore history and biology. Both sides in this argument have merit: there is obvious virtue in remaining steadfast against “the world, the Devil, and the flesh,” but is also necessary that the Christian faith be a living faith, and that the Bible not be made into an idol. The Catholic Church, of course, has an entirely different model, and you are welcome to it.

The tenets of Anglican Christianity are traditionally best found in the Nicene Creed. Insofar as our communion is separated from Rome, the Thirty-Nine Articles might serve as a pretty decent summation of where the differences lie (Newman’s commentary on these is nearly invaluable for an understanding of the “Anglo-Catholic” approach).

While there are Catholics in the pews and clergy in place of authority that are sinners, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are pure and do not change with the times.

Good on the Catholic Church, then. That 54% of its voting bloc in the United States saw fit to disregard Church policy on abortion only serves to underscore the fact that the Episcopal Church is far from having a monopoly on discord.

Neither is it much of a secret that Vatican II pretty much "changed the doctrines with the times.” Aggiornamento carries the very sense of this. Benedict XVI has publicly hailed Gaudium et Spes as the Church’s attempt to “reconcile herself with the world.” All this despite the Church’s own Syllabus of Errors, in which the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” is condemned.

 

[GKC]

The Articles can be useful, when talking to Anglicans who affirm them. Outside of the ordinands of the Church of England (as an erastian institution), theoretically, that is up to the individual, or, sometimes, the jurisdiction. But they are not de fide, they are history; how Elizabeth I decided her fractious Church would be directed…
No doubt many of them are affirmed, as would be true for any Trinitarian Christian. But Anglicanism, generally, is creedal, not confessional.

GKCD

Protestant morality is largely Bible-based. The stories of Onan and Sodom were not jettisoned along with the Wisdom literature. This is why there is an incredible amount of healthy debate going on in the entire Anglican Communion regarding homosexuality. The Bible has weathered an impressive amount of textual scrutiny over the last hundred or so years, beginning with Wellhausen and continuing even today. Our present understanding of Scripture is vastly different than that of the Reformers—we can’t back turn back the clock on scholarship, nor can we ignore history and biology. Both sides in this argument have merit: there is obvious virtue in remaining steadfast against “the world, the Devil, and the flesh,” but is also necessary that the Christian faith be a living faith, and that the Bible not be made into an idol. The Catholic Church, of course, has an entirely different model, and you are welcome to it.

The tenets of Anglican Christianity are traditionally best found in the Nicene Creed. Insofar as our communion is separated from Rome, the Thirty-Nine Articles might serve as a pretty decent summation of where the differences lie (Newman’s commentary on these is nearly invaluable for an understanding of the “Anglo-Catholic” approach).

Good on the Catholic Church, then. That 54% of its voting bloc in the United States saw fit to disregard Church policy on abortion only serves to underscore the fact that the Episcopal Church is far from having a monopoly on discord.

Neither is it much of a secret that Vatican II pretty much "changed the doctrines with the times.” Aggiornamento carries the very sense of this. Benedict XVI has publicly hailed Gaudium et Spes as the Church’s attempt to “reconcile herself with the world.” All this despite the Church’s own Syllabus of Errors, in which the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” is condemned.