"Bishop" Schori preaches total apostasy

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I would question how you question, Dharma. When have I condemned 7 million people? LOL…you’re priceless. And if you paid any attention at all, I mean even the SLIGHTEST attention to my posts, you’d see that I’ve been raked over the coals by my fellow Catholids for our “own house” not being “clean.” I’ve been very open as to my disgust and outrage about how this sexual predator and abuse problem has been dealt with in my Church. A little outrage about your church would do you a lot of good. Cheers.

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?

 

[GKC]

And I would question how you question, Dharma. When have I condemned 7 million people? LOL…you’re priceless. And if you paid any attention at all, I mean even the SLIGHTEST attention to my posts, you’d see that I’ve been raked over the coals by my fellow Catholids for our “own house” not being “clean.” I’ve been very open as to my disgust and outrage about how this sexual predator and abuse problem has been dealt with in my Church. A little outrage about your church would do you a lot of good. Cheers.

By any chance, do you know who these 7 million are?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Overall a pretty good post, Ygg. The vitriol, unfairly parade, and bonhomie parts made me chuckle, though! I’d agree with much of what you said. Most Episcopalians I’ve ever met were indeed left of the average even liberal Catholic or similar to it. I think most Episcopalians are either too old to change or they’re left of center to be sure. As for Pope Benedict XVI, he deserves MUCH criticism for the way he has worded his ecumenical outreaches early on, with this abuse nonsense and the coverups, and I don’t think he’s half the pope John Paul II was. Of course you’re right, he’s no heretic a la sedevacantists like Mel Gibson’s cookoo pops. My brush is a bit broad at times. But I’m a teacher so I don’t have a lot of money to buy a thinner one.

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? )

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you read the attendance report given to Schiori that she tried to hide last year, brother, it ain’t 7 million! These 7 million must be hiding under the woodwork, eves, and bellfreys!

By any chance, do you know who these 7 million are?

GKC

 

[DharmaBum]

I will admit that my number is inflated. It’s more around 2 and a half. My point is more aimed tendency to make big general statements that, in all honesty, seem to serve no purpose other than to inflame. I have always respected the Catholic church and even attended classes (I was considering converting to marry in the church). I pray the rosary, don’t have a problem with the Marian dogmas, and try to keep a level head about it. I regret bringing up the “clean house” reference. It was made out of haste because I really couldn’t believe that you were on another thread making these statements and said you were done only to come to a different thread and start again. I realize that this will be repeated ad nauseum because you think it’s ok to do that. I won’t attack the Catholic church, it’s not my place to do so. I will aslo say that if the church were filled with people who share your affinity for verbal attacks I would not step even a foot in. Gladly, I know better from experience. Again, all I can do is pray for you and hope that this obsession subsides. God bless you.

 

[DharmaBum]

I forgot to add that I am certainly NOT happy about some of the developments in the church right now. I will stay because I’m not willing to cut and run when standing and believing is appropriate. Change will not be effected from the outside, I believe, but more effectively from within. I think you and I can see eye to eye on that even from our respective points of view. Again, god bless you.

 

[Yggdrasil]

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

Very well put. I do think the Articles can be useful for Catholics, though, in establishing whence peculiarly Anglican attitudes and approaches are derived. Since the Nicene Creed is shared.

This is probably neither here nor there, but I read a lot of Newman prior to leaving the Episcopal Church to join Rome, and I find myself reading him anew now that I’ve returned. Tract 90 is always interesting. However historical, the essence of the Articles, particularly those vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism, is what any conscientious Anglican or Roman convert has to either embrace or untether from.

 

[blazerdave]

I forgot to add that I am certainly NOT happy about some of the developments in the church right now. I will stay because I’m not willing to cut and run when standing and believing is appropriate. Change will not be effected from the outside, I believe, but more effectively from within. I think you and I can see eye to eye on that even from our respective points of view. Again, god bless you.

Right there with you!

 

[GKC]

I appreciate your opening comment, but do not agree with your thoughts following. Peculiarly Anglican attitudes of particular Anglicans, and most especially as originating in a particular set of circumstances, maybe. And certainly that excludes those Articles that all Trinitarian Christians would affirm, if they stumbled over them in the street.

I read a lot of Newman myself, back in the day (the day being in college, as I began my approach to Catholicism, in the Anglican mode. Tract 90 is a tour de force. But most useful if one feels the need to somehow justify them, rather than putting them where the 1979 book puts them. Or, as some Anglo-Catholic parishes do, removing them from the Prayer Book and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Or, one may embrace or untether from them, as you say. But one need not, generally, as an Anglican, affirm them, outside the constraints of the Subscription Act (1571, 13 Elizabeth, Cap. 12). Which is where most Anglicans are.

GKC

Very well put. I do think the Articles can be useful for Catholics, though, in establishing whence peculiarly Anglican attitudes and approaches are derived. Since the Nicene Creed is shared.

This is probably neither here nor there, but I read a lot of Newman prior to leaving the Episcopal Church to join Rome, and I find myself reading him anew now that I’ve returned. Tract 90 is always interesting. However historical, the essence of the Articles, particularly those vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism, is what any conscientious Anglican or Roman convert has to either embrace or untether from.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I appreciate your opening comment, but do not agree with your thoughts following. Peculiarly Anglican attitudes of particular Anglicans, and most especially as originating in a particular set of circumstances, maybe. And certainly that excludes those Articles that all Trinitarian Christians would affirm, if they stumbled over them in the street.

I read a lot of Newman myself, back in the day (the day being in college, as I began my approach to Catholicism, in the Anglican mode. Tract 90 is a tour de force. But most useful if one feels the need to somehow justify them, rather than putting them where the 1979 book puts them. Or, as some Anglo-Catholic parishes do, removing them from the Prayer Book and using them to kindle the new fire at Easter. Or, one may embrace or untether from them, as you say. But one need not, generally, as an Anglican, affirm them, outside the constraints of the Subscription Act (1571, 13 Elizabeth, Cap. 12). Which is where most Anglicans are.

GKC

Right. And there’s almost a sense of the personal in Tract 90, since in retrospect it’s tempting to see Newman not only trying to justify the Articles, but to justify ultimately being an Anglican. The latter is something most of us feel compelled to do—and the Articles are a convenient (and historically significant, to the extent they aren’t just Elizabethan relics) platform to wrestle with the faith on, like old Jacob in the Bible.

True that they needn’t be affirmed out of obligation. “Embrace” was a poor choice of a word; “reconcile with” might’ve been better.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Dharma,

I don’t know if you can realize that this post contains all the bite, condescention, and anger that you claim my posts convey? You think my statements serve only to inflame. That is your interpretation of them. Fine. It’s not my intention. My intention is to point out the intense sinfulness of your church. And I believe you are incredibly naive, with all due respect, to think you can affect change from within? Come on? Don’t you think that Iker, Schofield, Duncan, and all the other bishops of a conservative or more traditional/orthodox model of theology already tried that? There were conservative, traditional bishops that put up with so much garbage from TEC that they kept holding on to the belief that reform was possible. It’s not. If you watched the events unfold throughout the 90’s and especially in the early part of the new millenium, things are too far gone. I am simply pointing out these differences, the seriously skewed and warped view of God that the TEC is promoting, the ecclesiastical chaos, the litigation that is terribly punitive and un-Christian, and the not just one but MANY instances of tolerance of neo-pagan and non-Christian worship. If you think I’m doing that to incense you to riot, that’s ok. It’s just not reality.

And when you apologize, I notice you follow up your apology with a “but.” It’s like saying, “your wife is a pig!” and then you are told by a friend to apologize. “Ok, I’m sorry your mom is a pig.” You realize you did that, right? You say I inflamed and defamed Episcopalians on one thread, said I was done there, and then came to another thread and did it again. First of all, are you my official policeman on a Catholic message board that shadows me and politically correct-style is in charge of making sure I don’t criticize the TEC? I said I was done in that particular thread. I was tired of the players, the silly and banal repeated dog-chasing-its tail persecution stuff, and I was out of there. Go check out that thread. No more posts from moi. But I commented on this thread. I think you wanted some signed statement from me giving up my right to free speech in which I swear here and now to henceforth not criticize TEC or Schiori and refrain from said persecutions on any and every thread no matter when or how it is brought up. Sorry to disappoint.

Again you paint yourself as a holy, humble, kind, charitable soul and myself as Hitler in the bunker. You point out how you never attack Catholics, how charitable you are, how you are so open to the Catholic Church, how you refuse to lower yourself to my level and don’t “share my affinity for verbal attacks.” Do you realize the condescending tone and holier-than-thou undertones? You up on stage, me down in pit. It really boils down to the same type of judgmental arrogance you accuse me of. Then you bless me? Negatively-charged words you use like “ad nauseum,” “inflame,” “obsession,” “attacks” and other spicy words that make me a bum and you virtuous. And you admit to falsifying a number but it’s not your fault you falsified or exagerrated, I drove you to it with my rancor? Then you close with a prayer that this sad, angry, bitter man will see the light and be more like you. Wowzers?

I am not OBSESSED with the Episcopal Church. I follow it, I comment on it. When people like yourself and the possy of guys that jumped me in the other thread attack, I defend and explain and continue the discussion. I am a former Episcopalian just like there are former Mormons, former Jehovah’s Witnesses, and former Baptists in here, too. If you take a look, those Mormons, JW’s, Baptists, etc. all comment a lot in threads about their former denominations. Sometimes they comment positively and often they are concerned about their former congregants and deeply concerned that apostasy, sin, pantheology and pansexuality are running rampant. They have the right to do so without being declared to be Joseph Stalin. I am interested in many things other than the bizarre and ditsy mind of Schiori and the controversies of the Episcopal Church. But if I’m in the mood to discuss it and I am concerned, I will.

I will admit that my number is inflated. It’s more around 2 and a half. My point is more aimed tendency to make big general statements that, in all honesty, seem to serve no purpose other than to inflame. I have always respected the Catholic church and even attended classes (I was considering converting to marry in the church). I pray the rosary, don’t have a problem with the Marian dogmas, and try to keep a level head about it. I regret bringing up the “clean house” reference. It was made out of haste because I really couldn’t believe that you were on another thread making these statements and said you were done only to come to a different thread and start again. I realize that this will be repeated ad nauseum because you think it’s ok to do that. I won’t attack the Catholic church, it’s not my place to do so. I will aslo say that if the church were filled with people who share your affinity for verbal attacks I would not step even a foot in. Gladly, I know better from experience. Again, all I can do is pray for you and hope that this obsession subsides. God bless you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Right there with you!

 

[GKC]

Now we are lining up more closely. The point falls under my common observation that Anglicans are a motley crew. Some will take one attitude toward the Articles. Some another. And some no attitude at all, beyond that of the antiquarian. As Staley quoted Bishop Bramhall on them, “We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, `without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same that are contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within the proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.” For the preservation of unity they were constructed and imposed, in the manner in which they were imposed. Unity is such an an antiquarian idea in Anglicanism, itself. And the Articles are no instrument to impose it.

GKC

Right. And there’s almost a sense of the personal in Tract 90, since in retrospect it’s tempting to see Newman not only trying to justify the Articles, but to justify ultimately being an Anglican. The latter is something most of us feel compelled to do—and the Articles are a convenient (and historically significant, to the extent they aren’t just Elizabethan relics) platform to wrestle with the faith on, like old Jacob in the Bible.

True that they needn’t be affirmed out of obligation. “Embrace” was a poor choice of a word; “reconcile with” might’ve been better.

 

[DharmaBum]

Gurney, making a mistake isn’t falsifying. I was pulling a number from memory which was a version of the 70 million in the Anglican communion. It was a mistake, I admitted it.

As for how you think I see you. DEAD WRONG. I can’t even apologize or pray for you or bless you without you taking offense. Insinuating that I called you Hitler or even compare you to him is deeply offensive to me personally. I suggest you go back an read the forum guidelines on that one.

Good day, sir.

 

[DharmaBum]

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These are the guidelines to which I am referring and I should be able to converse on these forums with a reasonable expectation that these will be upheld. I will not tolerate belittting and personal attacks in which words are put into my mouth and beliefs are attributed to me that I don’t espouse.

And for the record, I said I regret using that incorrect statistic, then did it again by saying 70 million when in fact it’s 700 million. I never apologized so that whole paragraph is irrelevant.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well thanks for wishing me a good day at least But I’m not an officer so no need for “sir.” Sounds like Keith Olbermann

I think you need to review the forum rules as well. It’s interesting how none of the rules apply to you but I must follow to the letter. Your posts are littered with jabs both subtle and in-your-face toward the Catholic Church and all of your apologies, as I stated earlier, are followed up with a “but.” You know that. So stop the victim-mongering. So it’s natural to take offense to an insincere apology followed up with further insults, right?

Thanks for your many suggestions and constant mothering. That’s great. I’m not going to offer you any suggestion. You’re an adult. And I’m not going to quote the rules to you either…another subtle insult.

I do have one question though—why the word “bum” in your name? LOL… message?

Gurney, making a mistake isn’t falsifying. I was pulling a number from memory which was a version of the 70 million in the Anglican communion. It was a mistake, I admitted it.

As for how you think I see you. DEAD WRONG. I can’t even apologize or pray for you or bless you without you taking offense. Insinuating that I called you Hitler or even compare you to him is deeply offensive to me personally. I suggest you go back an read the forum guidelines on that one.

Good day, sir.

 

[GCMac87]

I do have one question though—why the word “bum” in your name? LOL… message?

While the post is not directed at me, I would imagine the name comes from the Jack Kerouac novel of the same name; it’s been in my library for quite some time, although I have yet to get around to reading it.

May the Peace of the Lord be always with you!

 

[DharmaBum]

Correct, it’s a nod to Kerouac.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Mac,
I know LOL it’s from Jack Kerouac’s Beat Generation. I was just joking with the bumster. I’m a big San Francisco Giants fan so “bum” always refers to Dodgers. “The Bums” is an old term for Dodgers fans. If Dharmabum is a Dodgers fan then we REALLY have issues…lol… Episcopalian and Dodgers is an overload

While the post is not directed at me, I would imagine the name comes from the Jack Kerouac novel of the same name; it’s been in my library for quite some time, although I have yet to get around to reading it.

May the Peace of the Lord be always with you!

 

[DharmaBum]

To be clear again, I have not apologized for remarks I’ve made other than the “clean house” remark. That was not followed with a “but”. I think the points I have tried to make about the nature of your statements about my church are valid. I also think they don’t follow the guidelines of discussion on this forum. I have seen you get very frustrated with other people on this board for “putting words” in your mouth, but you are doing it to me. I’m not “victim mongering”–I’m a big boy. This discussion is taking place on a forum where people don’t have to see the people with whom they’re talking, so a certain amount of civility should be followed. I’m happy to have a discussion on those terms.

Despite what you may think I think about you I do admire your veracity.

God bless you…and I MEAN that