Episcopalian vs. Catholic

[Yggdrasil]

We all know Rome is not quick to pounce on a Bishop for ANYTHING (sexual abuse crisis, anyone?), so saying that absence of condemnation is approval is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to imply. Absent a condemnation from Rome, the laity are allowed to pronounce their own condemnation?

What the lack of a condemnation should be taken to mean is that Cardinal Mahony is within his prerogative under *Sacrosanctum Concilium *§37: “it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to specify adaptations.” If you insist that his introduction of liturgical dance exceeds the fundamental norms, then the silence from Rome might indicate that Cardinal Mahony desired “an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy,” as per §40, and that this request was “submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.” Ought not the prelate to be given the benefit of the doubt?

So once again, when Rome is lax in enforcing its own discipline, we can feel free to characterize her guidance and rubrics as “obscurantia”?

No, but we can say that her rubrics are either worth diddly-squat for all that they’re enforced—or we can assume that her rubrics are not as stringent as you think they are.

Bringing WYD into it isn’t helping the case for liturgical dancing being an authentic part of Catholic liturgical tradition. And if the conductor sets the tempo, I hope you’ll take Pope Benedicts emphasis on solemn liturgies and Sacrosanctum Concilium AS WRITTEN to heart. If you haven’t already read The Spirit of the Liturgy, I’d highly recommend reading and internalizing it. That’s the direction our “conductor” wishes to go.

Pope Benedict’s thoughts on the liturgy remain his own. The public worship of the Catholic Church, however, is on display for all to take note of. This includes papal Masses. If liturgical dancing is condemned, then the spectacle of a pope smiling at the coryphées at World Youth Day presents you with the serious problem of a self-contradicting authority.

Sacrosanctum Concilium (“AS WRITTEN”) affords the diocesan superior the privilege of introducing cultural practices into the liturgy. Is this in dispute?

You have to reach back to pre-Christianity to find it as part of western cultural religious tradition. Trying to reintroduce it now is not an organic or authentic development of the liturgy. It’s a rupture, jarring to the senses and horrifyingly out of place in the Mass.

I hardly think that ballet would be a horrifying assault to the senses. Much of the liturgical dance that has been introduced in the West has been generally tame—and in many cases, it’s incredibly lame as well: usually it’s just series of gentle turns and twirls accompanied by a little bit of arm-waving. (To the extent that I’m actually bothered by it, it’s because it often tends to scream “amateurs!” The stereotype of middle-aged ladies in leotards is overdone, but it does have a basis in reality.) Nevertheless, the histrionic objections coming from so-called “traditionalist” quarters are steeped in a weird kind of Puritanical outrage. Dance is an art form, and the arts are constituents of the liturgy.

I don’t know if I need to point out that the notion of “organic or authentic development of the liturgy” has been duly rejected by the post-conciliar Catholic Church. She effectively Protestantized her august Tridentine Rite in less than a decade—introducing more changes in a single generation that had been undertaken in practically the entire millennium beforehand! (Thomas Cranmer, the father of the Anglican liturgy, must’ve been smirking in his grave). The sweep and scope of the Novus Ordo changes are unprecedented. “Jarring rupture” is the dominant paradigm in both the Episcopal Church and the Catholic.

I’m unable to find “dance” in Sacrosanctum Concilium at all.

Well, no. It doesn’t mention “Africa” or “Asia,” either, by the way. Dance would naturally fall under the umbrella of “anything in the way of life of the various races and peoples.”

Ballet is not part of Catholic liturgical tradition in the West. If the Japanese Catholics wish to introduce kabuki theatre into the Mass, or Maori Catholics wish to continue tribal dancing as part of the liturgy, well, good on them. None of it is relevant to our traditions in the Western Church.

You’re setting a double standard, since presumably Catholic Masses celebrated in both Japan and Oceania did not traditionally feature dance before Vatican II. The Church in Europe, however, did tolerate dance in a way that entwined it much with the liturgical calendar and religious expression, all the way up through the Middle Ages. The condemnations of dance issued by the hierarchy were more concerned with what they perceived as an element of wantonness and lasciviousness creeping in, and not with dance itself. It was a shift in clerical attitude that ended the practice, not that the practice was non-existent.

What Sacrosanctum Concilium is providing for is that cultural features (whether they’re Japanese, Maori, or European) be open for consideration to be “admitted into the liturgy itself.”

 

[Yggdrasil]

If we truly want to implement the liturgical norms of Vatican II, we should hear Gregorian Chant or polyphony at almost every Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium 116).

Says you. “Liturgical norms of Vatican II” is an oxymoron. By ceding the final prerogative to the whims and tastes of the local ordinary, Sacrosanctum Concilium effectively de-clawed itself, nullifying any “norms” that it wished to impress. Most of the bishops who signed SC went home and blissfully ignored it—and indeed, it contained more than enough provisions for them to do so. If the Roman Pontiffs had any objections to the quick demise of Gregorian Chant and polyphony, then they made very little in the way of noise, and in fact they tolerated all manner of insipid contemporary music in many of their own Masses and services.

At no time in its long history has dance been a part of the Mass. I challenge you to show me examples of where dancing was included as part of Catholic liturgical life in the West.

This is from the entry for “dance” in The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages:To uproot the popular taste for dancing, the Church, in conformity with its pastoral principles, sought to utilize dancing by incorporating it into the liturgy or the paraliturgy. The clergy and people testified to their joy by tripodia which were religious dances. At Corvey, nocturnal dances took place around the relics of St. Guy, a saint reputed to cure demoniac possession. At Sainte-Foy at Conques, at Saint-Martial at Limoges, in the 11th century, clerics and laity danced. We can point to other manifestations, such as the Easter dance at Auxerre around the labyrinth on the cathedral floor, the round dance of the chapter at each appointment.

If you cannot, then you should admit that inclusion of dancing as part of the Mass is a rupture with tradition and not an authentic development in our liturgy. The Church’s official word on the subject is:

The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worship of the Latin Church.

If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services.

Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders.

That appears to be the opinion (conveniently in line with your own) of an essay-writer on a website called Adoremus, and not necessarily the official word of the Church.

Does the Church provide any document that formally condemns liturgical dance in the West, or are we confusing the “official word of the Church” with the interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium as midrashed by “traditionalist” Catholic groups?

 

[nhylan]

oh man more dancing!

 

[nhylan]

A well-written post, nhylan. I’m not sure I agree on all counts, but well-said. But I must take issue with your departure when dancing came up! LOL
For God’s sake man, live a little!

I’d love to hear your ideas on this Gurney!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A liturgical re-enactment of the trials of Job done through the medium of breakdancing a la Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo

I’d love to hear your ideas on this Gurney!

 

[Yggdrasil]

oh man more dancing!

I’m content to have the dancing discussion moved to a different forum, as Chris has wisely suggested.

The Episcopal Church of late has, at diverse times and occasions, featured liturgical dance. I don’t really mind it. My original point, though, was merely that for Catholics to criticize the Episcopal Church on grounds of liturgical dance is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think, Yggdrasil, that most practicing, orthodox Catholics would criticize the Episcopal Church on grounds of liturgical dance. Most former Anglicans/Episcopalians converted or reverted (as was my case) to Catholicism have several serious concerns with TEC. I cannot speak for all but I will say these were my big concerns:

1.) TEC’s vision of Christ as being a way to Christ, not the way

2.) Pansexuality run wild

3.) A deep acceptance and appreciation of the gay lifestyle

4.) Tolerance for and, in some parts, even praise for abortion

5.) Women’s ordination

6.) Feminine language used to characterize Christ in many TEC circles

7.) A mixing of God with other pagan gods and non-Christian notions of god

8.) Co-worship with non-Christian groups

9.) A desire to be hierarchical as a church when the Episcopal Church in America was founded and designed with church polity that was deliberately set up to be local in nature and not hierarchical like Catholicism

10.) Revisions in the prayer book

11.) Liberal language in many parts changing the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to other strange monikers

12.) Is the Bible to really be taken literally? I mean, come on?----type talk being all-too frequent and pervasive

13.) Is Jesus really divine? In some parts that is really open for debate in TEC?

14.) Tolerance being too widespread for men like the retired lunatic Spong and other wackos who have not only strayed from Anglican theology but Christian and even theistic theology altogether

15.) Right vs. Wrong. Is there any such thing?

16.) Sex before marriage or outside of marriage. Is it really so wrong? hmmmm

17.) Carbon footprint ‘stations of the cross’?? what the…?

I could go on…but I think I’ve made my point. My wife and I left TEC and then about five years later our old parish broke in two and joined ACNA, left TEC just like we did. They’re struggling to survive. I wish them well.

So liturgical dance honestly never even got on my radar. I had an almost endless list of what I believe to be heterodox, heretical, nutty, wacky, and even diabolical stuff in TEC that ran me off (and many others!) long before anyone did liturgical dance, rain dances, or break dances, in TEC.

I’m content to have the dancing discussion moved to a different forum, as Chris has wisely suggested.

The Episcopal Church of late has, at diverse times and occasions, featured liturgical dance. I don’t really mind it. My original point, though, was merely that for Catholics to criticize the Episcopal Church on grounds of liturgical dance is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

I have been blessed to worship at one of the last remaining orthodox Episcopal parishes, and I can assure the OP and any other readers that the thing said here are tragically true. Things are worse in the Episcopal Church than are generally known. In my opinon, the pushing of agendas seems to outway all other emphases. Good is called evil, and evil good. No offense is meant to anyone by these words, but I can’t think of another way to put it.

But to answer the original question, the place where I’m at would probably seem 90-95% oldschool Catholic to you in terms of practice. Very High Church, lots of reverence, belief in Real Presence, kneeling at the altar for Communion, etc. We even oppose abortion - a shocking statement from an Episcopal church. The other Anglican options where I live are basically evangelical/emergent church plants, so we can either hold out as long as possible or put “Rome” in our Mapquest. It’s tough to be an Anglo-Catholic or a “sorta Catholic” Protestant these days…our time seems to have ended, but a few parishes never got the memo. We covet your prayers!

and you have them!!

Thank you for sharing the struggles with us. In my view of the changes in the Episcopalian Church I seem to have lost sight of how difficult it must be for those who are not in line with the modernists. How incredibly hard and disheartening this must be.

So, yes, you have my prayers for peace and comfort and guidance in the effort to become closest to God. I believe that Rome would be blessed to have you.

 

[nhylan]

Wow there is some crazy stuff in that list there. This is what ive experienced.

3.) A deep acceptance and appreciation of the gay lifestyle

5.) Women’s ordination

9.) A desire to be hierarchical as a church when the Episcopal Church in America was founded and designed with church polity that was deliberately set up to be local in nature and not hierarchical like Catholicism

16.) Sex before marriage or outside of marriage. Is it really so wrong? hmmmm

I feel like my church is fairly mainline so maybe this gives people a better idea of your “average” Episcopal community.

I don’t think, Yggdrasil, that most practicing, orthodox Catholics would criticize the Episcopal Church on grounds of liturgical dance. Most former Anglicans/Episcopalians converted or reverted (as was my case) to Catholicism have several serious concerns with TEC. I cannot speak for all but I will say these were my big concerns:

1.) TEC’s vision of Christ as being a way to Christ, not the way

2.) Pansexuality run wild

3.) A deep acceptance and appreciation of the gay lifestyle

4.) Tolerance for and, in some parts, even praise for abortion

5.) Women’s ordination

6.) Feminine language used to characterize Christ in many TEC circles

7.) A mixing of God with other pagan gods and non-Christian notions of god

8.) Co-worship with non-Christian groups

9.) A desire to be hierarchical as a church when the Episcopal Church in America was founded and designed with church polity that was deliberately set up to be local in nature and not hierarchical like Catholicism

10.) Revisions in the prayer book

11.) Liberal language in many parts changing the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to other strange monikers

12.) Is the Bible to really be taken literally? I mean, come on?----type talk being all-too frequent and pervasive

13.) Is Jesus really divine? In some parts that is really open for debate in TEC?

14.) Tolerance being too widespread for men like the retired lunatic Spong and other wackos who have not only strayed from Anglican theology but Christian and even theistic theology altogether

15.) Right vs. Wrong. Is there any such thing?

16.) Sex before marriage or outside of marriage. Is it really so wrong? hmmmm

17.) Carbon footprint ‘stations of the cross’?? what the…?

I could go on…but I think I’ve made my point. My wife and I left TEC and then about five years later our old parish broke in two and joined ACNA, left TEC just like we did. They’re struggling to survive. I wish them well.

So liturgical dance honestly never even got on my radar. I had an almost endless list of what I believe to be heterodox, heretical, nutty, wacky, and even diabolical stuff in TEC that ran me off (and many others!) long before anyone did liturgical dance, rain dances, or break dances, in TEC.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Your litany of concerns with the Episcopal Church is thorough and impressive, Gurney, but I think at least several of the issues you raised are equally represented in the Catholic Church! Take, for example, nos. 10, 8, and 1 on your list:

• The 1979 Prayer Book has its problems indeed, but the design and orations of the traditional Anglican liturgy have been far better preserved than has the Tridentine Missal, which itself was codified virtually in perpetuity by the Quo Primum. Trent’s caution against letting a Protestant character creep into the Mass (and Pius V’s harshly-worded Bull instructing his successors not to play with the Missal) were given a respectful deference for four centuries before a swift and nearly complete overhaul was undertaken in the 1960s. For sweep, scope, and gruesome efficiency of revision, I think the poor Catholics have it all over the Episcopalians.
• Episcopalians do sponsor “co-worship with non-Christian groups,” but I submitted for your consideration on another thread that John Paul II practically held the interfaith rager of the century at Assisi in 1988, with crucifixes removed from chapels (lest anyone be offended), and Catholic altars moonlighting as thrones for statues of the Buddha.
• And if you worry about the Episcopal Church not fully promoting Our Lord as “the way, the truth, and the light,” than what about the famously controversial wording in Church documents like Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, which avers that “in fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth”? One wonders what “truth” the Council supposed Christians are looking for, since the traditional line has always been that, insofar as they have the faith, Christians possess the splendor veritatis.

We probably needn’t concern ourselves overmuch with addressing the points concerning venereal transactions between consenting adults. I consider myself a conservative in most regards, but this is actually one of the differences that I appreciate between the Episcopalian and Catholic Churches. If you prefer precise standards and a strict ecclesial governance over sexual morality, then Rome is your pasture. If you don’t, then—as our coat of arms proclaims: “the Episcopal Church welcomes you!” I’m aware that moral trends wax and wane, but I’m fairly convinced that the prevailing contemporary views on sex and sexuality are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Contrary to how they’ve been characterized in Christian circles, I don’t think these views are necessarily irresponsible, either. We can agree to disagree on these matters. (Many Catholics knowingly and blithely disregard their own Church’s teaching on them anyway).

This leaves several points remaining (“Is the Bible to really be taken literally?” “Is Jesus really divine?”) that are perhaps best summed up in no. 14, in which you take John Shelby Spong to task for being a “wacko” and a “lunatic,” and the Episcopal Church to task for giving him a pass as he raises these questions. While I disagree strongly with J.S.S.’s radical and often immature theology (and wonder, along with the Abp. of Canterbury, why he bothers remaining a Christian at all), I don’t think a quick dismissal of him is fair. As much as the liberal antagonists may offend our sense of tradition and orthodoxy, the ugly debate that they continually insist on bringing to the fore is nevertheless an important debate that should engage all serious Christians. Here are Spong’s famous “12 Theses,” which you may’ve already read. Some of them are insolent (1, 2, 6) and some of them are daft rehashings of age-old objections (4,7). Some, however, (3, 9, 10, 11, and 12, listed below) are pretty provocative. They’ve been relevant in various forms for at least the last half-century, and they continue to fuel an honest skepticism about the faith—as well as lend a genuine intellectual credibility to less “theistic” religious traditions such as Buddhism or Vedanta. Spong’s vital contribution is to prick our complacency and remind us that we don’t want to become a Celsus to someone else’s Origen.

1. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

1. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

1. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

1. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

1. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Yggdrasil,

I agree with several statements you make here, disagree with a few. I wholeheartedly agree that Catholics tend to have a naivate (I have had this for years now until recently really) that Catholicism is so unified, all under one banner, all of one mind, conservative and on the same page unlike those pesky Episcopalians, poor schlobbs. You’re right. That’s not true. Cardinal Mahoney, Hans Kung, these crazy liberal nuns who wrote Obama, and the innovations like liturgical dance and kookey ideas presented at this recent Catholic education conference by pro-abortion speakers, pro-gay marriage speakers, nuns for female ordination, etc. all points to some serious problems from within. Add to that the liberal dictatorship of the Catholic universities like Georgetown and Notre Dame, that both seem nominally Catholic most of the time, and invitations to speak at said universities given to pro-choice politicians, and I agree, things are awry. Throw in some pedophilia scandals that have obviously been an epidemic for decades in some parts, horrendous cover-ups, and the Church is ill in many respects. Harcore apologetics and knee jerk defenders will deny all this but there is trouble and some definite viruses in the Body.

I will disagree with you that men like Spong have anything to offer anytime anywhere at all. He is a useless man theologically and I believe, diabolical. I don’t say that lightly. It’s always healthy to have a challenging presence. But a challenge should be edifying, not diabolical. This man’s ideas are sickening. They don’t build up or shape the laity or clergy, they warp and diminish Christ. Anyone who doubts and chides the divinity or humanity or legitimacy of Christ have no business being in any church, period. This man is no Athanasius at a time of Arianism. He is no Augustine, no Ignatius, no Newman, no man of depth, truth, or Christianity. He is a sad figure and a blight on the history of the Episcopal Church. I totally disagree with you there.

I would also say that there are alternatives to the radical sexual agenda of TEC. If a person were to disagree with the breadth and detail to which the Catholic Church wishes to govern and control an individual’s sex life, he doesn’t just have to become Episcopalian. There are other denominations that are a bit more hands-off but don’t radically set out to completely re-write 2,000 years of orthodoxy in the area.

In any case, may God bless you this Good Friday and beyond into Easter!

Your litany of concerns with the Episcopal Church is thorough and impressive, Gurney, but I think at least several of the issues you raised are equally represented in the Catholic Church! Take, for example, nos. 10, 8, and 1 on your list:

• The 1979 Prayer Book has its problems indeed, but the design and orations of the traditional Anglican liturgy have been far better preserved than has the Tridentine Missal, which itself was codified virtually in perpetuity by the Quo Primum. Trent’s caution against letting a Protestant character creep into the Mass (and Pius V’s harshly-worded Bull instructing his successors not to play with the Missal) were given a respectful deference for four centuries before a swift and nearly complete overhaul was undertaken in the 1960s. For sweep, scope, and gruesome efficiency of revision, I think the poor Catholics have it all over the Episcopalians.
• Episcopalians do sponsor “co-worship with non-Christian groups,” but I submitted for your consideration on another thread that John Paul II practically held the interfaith rager of the century at Assisi in 1988, with crucifixes removed from chapels (lest anyone be offended), and Catholic altars moonlighting as thrones for statues of the Buddha.

We probably needn’t concern ourselves overmuch with addressing the points concerning venereal transactions between consenting adults. I consider myself a conservative in most regards, but this is actually one of the differences that I appreciate between the Episcopalian and Catholic Churches. If you prefer precise standards and a strict ecclesial governance over sexual morality, then Rome is your pasture. If you don’t, then—as our coat of arms proclaims: “the Episcopal Church welcomes you!”
This leaves several points remaining (“Is the Bible to really be taken literally?” “Is Jesus really divine?”) that are perhaps best summed up in no. 14, in which you take John Shelby Spong to task for being a “wacko” and a “lunatic,” and the Episcopal Church to task for giving him a pass as he raises these questions. While I disagree strongly with J.S.S.’s radical and often immature theology (and wonder, along with the Abp. of Canterbury, why he bothers remaining a Christian at all), I don’t think a quick dismissal of him is fair. As much as the liberal antagonists may offend our sense of tradition and orthodoxy, the ugly debate that they continually insist on bringing to the fore is nevertheless an important debate that should engage all serious Christians. Here are Spong’s famous “12 Theses,” which you may’ve already read. Some of them are insolent (1, 2, 6) and some of them are daft rehashings of age-old objections (4,7). Some, however, (3, 9, 10, 11, and 12, listed below) are pretty provocative. They’ve been relevant in various forms for at least the last half-century, and they continue to fuel an honest skepticism about the faith—as well as lend a genuine intellectual credibility to less “theistic” religious traditions such as Buddhism or Vedanta. Spong’s vital contribution is to prick our complacency and remind us that we don’t want to become a Celsus to someone else’s Origen.

 

[CMatt25]

Wow there is some crazy stuff in that list there. This is what ive experienced.

3.) A deep acceptance and appreciation of the gay lifestyle

5.) Women’s ordination

9.) A desire to be hierarchical as a church when the Episcopal Church in America was founded and designed with church polity that was deliberately set up to be local in nature and not hierarchical like Catholicism

16.) Sex before marriage or outside of marriage. Is it really so wrong? hmmmm

I feel like my church is fairly mainline so maybe this gives people a better idea of your “average” Episcopal community.

It does. Thank you. Gurney lost me by his #12 anyway as Catholics don’t take everything literally either. Many I know don’t take a 6 day, evening and the morning 24 hr day Creation literally or women not speaking in church or other things in the Bible are not taken literally.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why did I lose you CMatt? Explain…

It does. Thank you. Gurney lost me by his #12 anyway as Catholics don’t take everything literally either. Many I know don’t take a 6 day, evening and the morning 24 hr day Creation literally.

 

[CMatt25]

Why did I lose you CMatt? Explain…

You were complainig about TEC not taking the Bible literally unless I misread what you wrote. Catholics don’t take a lot of things literally either.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

One thing Catholics and Episcopalians share is an amazing tin ear when it comes to public relations. The stuff coming out of the Vatican this week makes Katherine Jefferts Shori look like a master of public opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No argument there, Usbek. The anti-semitic analogy from Cantalamessa was lame. And the revelations about the pedophile in Arizona, Ireland, ay yay yay…what a week…Katharine Jefforts Schiori is a pretty rough feat to beat though…LOL…

One thing Catholics and Episcopalians share is an amazing tin ear when it comes to public relations. The stuff coming out of the Vatican this week makes Katherine Jefferts Shori look like a master of public opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When you say “Catholics,” are you referring to many of the laity out there or the Church herself? Surely you’re not comparing the widespread “yeah well, Paul didn’t really mean ________” theology that is rampant in the Episcopal Church with Catholicism where there are some liberal priests and theologians here and there, right? Would you really say that Catholicism in general teaches that Scripture is mostly allegory and symbolism, just didactic, not literal?

You were complainig about TEC not taking the Bible literally unless I misread what you wrote. Catholics don’t take a lot of things literally either.

 

[Yggdrasil]

This man is no Athanasius at a time of Arianism.

Agreed. He most certainly is not a saint. If Spong has a role to play, it is that of Arius. His challenge will hopefully force the hand of an Athanasius. The debate this time around is not about the precision of the Trinitarian doctrine, but about whether Christianity will have any real relevance or resonance in our world—or whether it will eventually become something like a hobby, or a social club of like-minded moralists, or a loosely affiliated network of charity organizations. The five of Spong’s theses that I think have teeth indicate five ways by which both the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church will likely (unless they can formulate a compelling response) continue to lose their relevance in many a modern mind. Spong’s hyperbole that “Christianity must change or die!” is empty rhetoric, of course, but that it may find itself increasingly marginalized is a real possibility.

In any case, may God bless you this Good Friday and beyond into Easter!

The very same to you! :byzsoc:

 

[TriuneUnity]

No argument there, Usbek. The anti-semitic analogy from Cantalamessa was lame. And the revelations about the pedophile in Arizona, Ireland, ay yay yay…what a week…Katharine Jefforts Schiori is a pretty rough feat to beat though…LOL…

Incidentally, Archbishop Rowan Williams came out today and stated that the Catholic Church in Ireland has lost all credibility. If I had been eating when I heard him say this, I would’ve choked to death LOL.

 

[blazerdave]

Incidentally, Archbishop Rowan Williams came out today and stated that the Catholic Church in Ireland has lost all credibility. If I had been eating when I heard him say this, I would’ve choked to death LOL.

Sigh. Yeah, I was surprised to hear this and the “God bless them; I don’t” statement to recent Anglican Tiber-swimmers. I guess I was surprised by the timing more than anything else. But as I thought about it, I began to realize that all of us and all of our respective communions seem to be enduring extraordinarily tough times. This is surely not the time to point fingers at others. But the current leaders do not know what to do to end their respective crises, so they attack the others while they’re vulnerable. Maybe it’s all too human a response. And sometimes the attacks have a basis in truth, though words spoken without Christian charity have no place in the mouths of any bishops. But on Holy Saturday? Strange timing indeed. Perhaps indicative of something else going on behind the scenes or beneath the surface…