Thursday, June 10, 2004

BATTLE OF THE BISHOPS!

In the left corner we have The Right Reverend Robert Wilkes Ilhoff, Episcopal Bishop of Maryland. Definitely a liberal, and a bishop in a Protestant church at that; but at least he doesn't persecute his conservative parishes. He presides over one of the densest territories of the Episcopal Church, and has it's most conservative convent under his wing (though he is not of course their episcopal visitor).





And in the right corner we have His Eminence, Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado. And, as it turns out, all the rest of North America too, at least in the schismatic sect to which he belongs. He is now on his fourth or fifth denomination-- I lost count. He has a history of e-mail/letter recruitment of more-or-less unattached young men, so that as it happens, of all the laymen who I know to have affiliation with his diocese, at most one of them was a member before I knew of them. Several are still not members and do not apparently have a way of attending liturgy weekly.









So, which of these men should you follow?

Wrong question!

If you believe in bishops in the first place, then the first thing you ought to know is that you don't follow a single bishop. And any group, Western or Eastern, Anglican or Russian, which is separated from its parent brings up questions of historical continuity. Reaching back to the Pedalion isn't really different from reaching back to Richard Hooker (short range) or scripture itself (long range)-- except that in a dispute between scripture and the Pedalion, I'm going to pick scripture every time.

One should not be choosing between Gregory's or Ilhoff's imperfections. And one shouldn't be defending the irrelevance of one's own bishop's imperfections, Nick. That's just rationalization.

Moving on to the denominations: of course, if you're a "one-true-church" member, then every other group has to have a fatal theological flaw. Obviously this is another avenue for rationalization, especially when one of the groups that has to be so defeated is your group's parent body. This presents an interesting puzzle: here I must be convinced strictly by the merits of the argument and not through authority, for that authority rests upon convincing me of the merits! Also, in the case of ROAC, the sins of which it accuses ROCOR happened long enough ago to where it is unclear that there is any untainted ROCOR for ROAC to descend from.

There's another choice available.....

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Keble:

Excellent post!

Joe Zollars

尼古拉 said...

You follow a synod not a bishop. My synod is Orthodox and yours is a Protestant group that teaches the opposite of the traditions and canons of the Church. Hmm, which synod should we follow?

Since you attack my church (ROAC) for leaving ROCOR, can you please defend your Episcopal/Anglican church from leaving the Roman one? or the Roman church for leaving Orthodoxy?

Dear Joe, when you decided to post as anonymous you might want to forget to sign your name to it. LOL!

Anonymous said...

It was not intended as an anonymous post. Just simply not under my blogger name as my blogger name is a political name and I didn't want to bring politics into this.

Now to waht you said, silly me I thought we followed Jesus and Holy Tradition, not a group of sinners. But since you are more Orthdox than the truest of true Orthodox you must know better than say any of hte Priests adn Bishops who say the above. Let us bow down to Vl. Nicholas. (meant half sarcastically)

Joe Zollars

SonOfDixie said...

Dear Nicholas:

I feel after rereading my previous post I must point out that I do not mean the above as attacking you or ROAC, but simply to state how you appear to others when you post such things. Please read what you write before you post it.

Joe Zollars

C. Wingate said...

Ah, Nick, the interesting point to me is not so much ROAC's departure as yours. You are, after all, on your third synod now, having passed judgement on the predecessors-- not to mention my church. I've commented for decades about how very Protestant this is.

All synods show some defect. Yours and mine show more or less opposed extremes. But your suggestion of passing judgement makes you a synod of one.

SonOfDixie said...

Nik is only on his second synod since his Baptism--First the ROCOR (a pretty much universally recognized real Church) and then ROAC (a pretty much universally recognized vagante church). Considering it has just been a little over a year since his Baptism, I would be especially worried if he was on his third synod.

Now Keble brings up a good point. The Father's tell us that the Royal Path does not exist in the extremes but rather in the middle. Thus the Royal Path is not a Lavra or a Hermitage, but a Skete.

As Aristotle said, the mean between two vices is a virtue.

Joe Zollars

尼古拉 said...

Joe, if you think my finding error in Anglicanism's openly lesbian bishops is wrong, well so be it. Most Orthodox would consider this far left of the Royal Path that you like to speak of, I would think.

Chuck, you continue to avoid the questions put to you and seem unable to defend you church's position, your bishop's position, your reasons for staying with synods you disagree with on matters of faith and your synod's history and origin. Why? Do you not have answers?

Anonymous said...

Joe Zollars is telling us whats right again? No thanks.

Speaking of "jusrisdiction hoping", where are you now Joe? Your guestbook on your own site shows a list longer than that of Nikolai or of ArchBishop Gregory of the ROAC combined... No, I'll skip, but thanks.

P.S. Jurisdiction hoping to the truth is better than staying in a bed of heretics who heresies constantly get worse, like the Anglicans.

SonOfDixie said...

looking at the guestbook of my website, one can construe 2 or maybe 3.

And before you continue twisting my words, perhaps you shoudl reread them. I did not say that Anglicanism is ok or even anywhere near the truth. However I don't consider Vagante Cults anywhere near the truth either.

Joe Zollars

Anonymous said...

But IS Archbishop Gregory even still WITH the ROAC?

Either he's hopped again, or SKIPPED

C. Wingate said...

As it happens, I have been told a story behind this. I don't know how much of it is accurate, being in the form of nearly fourth-hand account, and at any rate I'm not at liberty to tell what I do know. But now's the time to see the bishop, folks; I don't expect to see this image hanging around much longer.