tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6128144307446432865.post3486372705790345321..comments2023-03-27T00:34:21.392-07:00Comments on The Hackney Hub: A Balanced and Charitable Response to Bishop Mathes and Virtue OnlineThe Hackney Hubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05814256545664986458noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6128144307446432865.post-33243391905449213172011-11-01T05:41:39.469-07:002011-11-01T05:41:39.469-07:00Does non-resistance and passive obedience apply to...Does non-resistance and passive obedience apply to fleeing to another diocese or seeking a flying bishop? All we can do is go 'down the Erastian ladder', this being our litany. Perhaps this is complicated by the PECUSA constitution which was based on state dioceses unlike York and Canterbury that began with the province. Keble seems to outline an approach which I'm not sure fits the 1977 crowd, but, considering the relative autonomy of dioceses in America, might apply to the Ordinaries which left with their flock for ACNA:<br /><br />“It is very possible that I may overlook something which materially affects this question, and which may be plain enough to other persons; but it does seem to me that in the case supposed (of a public censure, and dispensation, refused), loyalty to the Church, her Creed or her Order both, could only be maintained by one of the two following courses: either we should continue in our ministry, respect, fully stating our case, and making appeal to the Metropolitan, or as Archbishop Cranmer did, to the Synod, and that publicly–which course one should be slow to adopt except in a matter which concerned the very principles of Faith and of Church Communion;–or else we should tender to our superiors our relinquishment of the post which we held under them in the Church, and retire either into some other diocese, or, if all our Bishops were agreed into lay communion. The objections in point of scandal to these two courses would be, that the former might sound under present circumstances more as a way of talking than anything else: the latter, unless the case were very amply and openly explained, would appear as if one conceded the notion of the Articles being incapable of a Catholic sense. But explanations might be given. And it seems on the whole that with the exception of such extreme cases as just now put, of positive heresy in one of the Most Sacred Order, this resource of lay communion, painful and trying as it must be in most cases, both in a temporal and spiritual sense, would be the only one properly open to us. Farther than it we could not even appear to separate from that which we believe to be the manifestation of the Holy Catholic Church in our country. We might be excommunicated, but we could neither join ourselves to any of the uncatholic communities around us, nor form a new communion for ourselves. We could not be driven into schism against our will. We could only wait patiently at the Church door, wishing and praying that our bonds might be taken off, and pleading our cause as we best might from reason and Scripture and Church precedents. So little ground is there for the surmise, that advocating the Catholic sense of the Articles is symptomatic of a tendency to depart from the English Church.” (John Keble, The Case of Catholic Subscription)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6128144307446432865.post-68500186590888491722011-10-18T07:59:27.068-07:002011-10-18T07:59:27.068-07:00I will attempt to answer your questions independen...I will attempt to answer your questions independently and adequately. <br /><br />"When the church is not disciplining its Bishops or its people for doing unbiblical things, how long must the people of God suffer?"<br /><br />I think in such cases as these, the laity are called to action. I recall an instance, perhaps I have the details wrong, but in the early Church there was a time when many bishops were Arians but due to the prayer and action of the laity, orthodoxy prevailed. The problem with splitting because of bad bishops is that we will never have perfect bishops because there is no perfect church. I always encourage people to read about the early 1700's in the Church of England, there were Arian bishops, Socinian bishops, bishops who wanted to include Unitarians in the National Church and every heresy under the sun. Heretical bishops are not new to the Church.<br /><br />"You say the abandoning of the doctrine of the church by the leadership does not grant a right to schism. Tell me, when will the leadership re-embrace the faith and become biblical again?"<br /><br />I can't tell you that, as it is in the Lord's hands, but I can tell you that it is farther away now that more orthodox priests and parishes have left, thus diminishing the orthodox voice in the Church.<br /><br />" If they don't, when is enough enough? If they continue down the road they are going what will become of the church. They are leading TEC over the cliff. People have been telling them this for not just years, but decades. They refuse to listen. How is this leadership?'<br /><br />PEUCSA has been in trouble for more than one hundred years. By 1900 Anglo-Catholicism and Liberalism dominated the Church. The Church is still the Church. It's not good leadership but they are the elected leaders of our Church. You see, the problem with TEC is not the bishops but the laity. As you know, bishops are elected in TEC, thus they reflect the theology of the laity. If we want to change anything, we have to change the laity, not the bishops.<br /><br />"Who has the authority to depose Schori when she is obviously unorthodox, and none of the other Bishops have the intestinal fortitude to oppose her?"<br /><br />There are canonical procedures to depose the Presiding Bishop which is something that should be explored.The Hackney Hubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814256545664986458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6128144307446432865.post-16584596301236489802011-10-17T13:01:27.753-07:002011-10-17T13:01:27.753-07:00"Of course the bishops of our Church are unde..."Of course the bishops of our Church are under divine judgment for abandoning the doctrine of this Church and acting against His will but that does not grant the right to schism, at least in this author's humble opinion."<br /><br />Okay, this leads me to ask this. When the church is not disciplining its Bishops or its people for doing unbiblical things, how long must the people of God suffer? You say the abandoning of the doctrine of the church by the leadership does not grant a right to schism. Tell me, when will the leadership re-embrace the faith and become biblical again? If they don't, when is enough enough? If they continue down the road they are going what will become of the church. They are leading TEC over the cliff. People have been telling them this for not just years, but decades. They refuse to listen. How is this leadership? Who has the authority to depose Schori when she is obviously unorthodox, and none of the other Bishops have the intestinal fortitude to oppose her? I think I've asked enough.Fr. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869676716891199486noreply@blogger.com