Jump to content

Rev. Smith

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rev. Smith

  • Birthday 06/19/1956

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.stfechins.org
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tucson, AZ.
  • Interests
    I'm a Priest in the Ecumenical Apostolic Church and a student of the Church of Antioch's Sophia Divinity School. I'm a mediator by trade and a student of kenjitsu, good scotch and art.

Rev. Smith's Achievements

New Member

New Member (3/9)

0

Reputation

  1. I'm not familiar with OC. Can you explain? Are the masses in latin? How can these Churches be liberal leaning without Vatican II? Is there a directory? Thanks. A Church in my area has a Lakeside service in the summer. I also went to a Quaker meeting that was held on someones backyard deck. There was an outstanding view of the surrounding nature, a gentle breeze, the warmth of the sun, and the faint sound of birds in our presence. It was quite peaceful. Good luck in your search. The easiest way to find us is google Old Catholic. As to how we are liberal and pre Vatican two, easy: Under the declaratrions of Utrecht the Church is only bound to the seven historical echumenical counsels, all the rest is considered commentary. Thus we have liberal and conservative OC churches.
  2. Many creeds hold that the sacraments may only be validly held in consecrated space, thus they are only valid in the Church. Our Old Catholic Church does not have that cannon or dogma, and we often hold the Mass, weddings and other clebrations outside, under the canopy of God's cathedral! Look around your area, most of the liberal leaning OC churches welcome worship held anywhere that it can be done with proper reverance.
  3. True, Brother Rog, but that equality was an equality in debased nature, since as you point out the Gnostics held all of the Creation as evil. Some Gnostic sects went so far as to deny that YHWH was the true God, but rather as the creator was the maker of the evil material world in order to trap mankind. I found the Gospel of Thomas very hopeful, particulary the story of the birds; it presents a Christ who grew into sanctity; and thus holds out the possibility for holiness for us as well. The Nag finds are very interesting for historical insight and a different look at spiritula development, but in the end I think the early Church leaders were correct in the selection of Canon. Still, enjoy.
  4. If violence in the origin of a creed and its adhearants were singular to Christian tradition then an overhaul of the Christian tradition might be in order (always presuming that we are somehow entitled to "re-write" scripture). Islam has not violent formation motif, but began with slaughter and is the worldwide leader in murder and mayhem today. It is impossable to imagagine a religion that either began more peacefully, or has non-violance at its core than Buddhaism, and yet it has had its share of wars waged in its name and by its adhearants. American culture has long had a violent streak, we have always been a contentious bunch but I think that has little to do with our Christian majority and far more to do with the indvidualism in our founding colonies and the expansion across the continent. The ressurection IS central to Christian salvation, but the attonement came on the Cross.
  5. The Line usually goes something like : (___________) Church is the triumph of Paul over Christ" What is really happening is that the writer is hoping to undo the legalism of Paul in order to assert a more mystical, spiritual and progressive dogma. Of all the early Church Fathers Paul was the most active in church planting and governance, and so dealt with the most practical or real world problems. Becasue of this Paul lays down the most strictures, he is most often cited by those who wish to opine or rule on conduct. For example in the current debate on Gay Marriage in our society Paul provides the only New Testament proscription of Gay conduct. Christ taught the doctrine, and made the covenant. Peter and James founded the Church and began its mission, but Paul and his co-workers were the evangalists and spread the word far and wide. It is true that Paul taught a lot to the church about how to get along with authority, and also had the strictest moral code (James, by contrast teaches only Christ's command of Love for God and Man, and the avoiding fornication and unclean foods). Rather than try to unwind the New Testament, progressive Chrisitians should seek to reconcile it all. If we give primacy to Christ, then to his apostles a clearer moral guide comes about : That which fosters faith and salvation outweighs exclusion. We, as a community, are to reject those who hate the Lord and all his works, but other than that we should be a welcoming community preaching grace and the Love of God. We can't help people come to the Lord if we drive them out of our churches with overly dour and accusitory faith. Paul himself reserved severe discipline only for the severly sinful who had rejected all counseling. Re-read Corinthians and Romans, Paul is not nearly as harsh a guy as some folks make him out to be.
  6. No argument there, but then again we don't feel we're doing the work of God's People because we "have to" either, we are honored that our Lord, in His great love has called us to his work. By being the good Samaratin and bringing an active love to the world we have the honor of, in a small and human way, of aiding God in his creation. It's not that God needs us to do it, God transcends his creation - it is that we need to serve, and in serveing come to love the creator through his cretion.
  7. Did you really mean to say this? Most all Christian Churches believe in "salvation by faith" not by works; i.e. people are saved by the unmerited gift of salvation provided by the life, death, and resurrection (however one understands those things) of Jesus the Christ. Yes, I do. I am aware that the majority hold with faith alone is required for salvation. My Church (along with others) teach that faith AND works are required, that it is not enough to believe, that the Christian must believe and then act the belief. We reject the entire Calvinist formula. As James the Just teaches, faith without works is nothing. What I don't believe is that God cares why we do a thing, so if a Methodist is living a Christian life because he believes that the Spirit enables him, and an Old Catholic like me belives that I live a Christian life because the spirit calls me to, well I'm pretty sure we'll both get to meet in paradise and compare notes.
  8. Wow - you've covered a lot of ground - let me see if I can help: Actually Christian doctrine is that we are to divorce only in the instances of adultory or if one partner is a believer and the other is not, and they want to part over this. This is a limitation on the Jewish law, which permitted diveorce by the man just by posting it. There are referances to incest, but not with "approval", Lot's daughters were violating the law in sleeping with their Dad (which is why the writer keeps reminding us that they got him drunk). I have always believed that the point of this story was to choose the higher duty, to sacrafice yourself (he went out to face the angry mob), or family to protect the stranger. Protecting a stranger was considered by the Jews to be one of the highest obligations. So for me the lesson here is that we must do even the most debasing and painful things to meet our obligations. [quoye]But this is what I don't understand. The modern Christian church allows remarriage. Living together is frowned on, but is done. It seems to be against the tenants of God's law. Yet homosexuality is the BIGGEST of the sins. Placards, hate mail, marchs to save "marriage" as "we" know it should be. I don't know how it should be. It seems most married couples spend a great deal of time ignoring, blaming even hating their partners...inevitably divorced. Divorce is permitted in some churches, but by no means all. Mine views it as a sin, and requires a great deal in the way of formation to obtain absolution. Since th Bible teaches that the only unforgivable sin is blasphamy of the Holy Spirit, we do not approve of divorce as much as we know that it can be forgiven with true repentance, like almost every other sin. Likewise I know of no Christian churches that will condone living together (in a sexual union) without marriage. Homosexuality isn't anywhere near the biggest sin, its just theone in the forefront becasue the gay rights movement is active now. It wasn't all that long ago that the culture war was fought over abortion. Sometimes we get to pick the issues that are confronted, sometimes they are choosen by others. You are, of course, correct that any sin may be forgiven. The reason that so many churches struggle with the place of Gays is this: The Gay christian does not want to repent, or even admit that the Bible appears to teach that homosexual acts (NOT the PEOPLE) are sin, and instead would like the creed to excise or overlook those teachings. Do I believe that Gay people go to heaven? Yes, but it will be becasue their sins were forgiven and through their diverse works of Charity and Love they merit the Grace of God.
  9. In the movie review section jeep wrote: Catchy, but not very well defended. (I know jeep, you were throwing out a line, not positing a position - still it was provacative). Our Church teaches (and I concur, I'm aware that a lot of priests use "our church teaches..." to imply disagreement) that the crucifiction was essential for two reasons: First, judism was (until ad 70) a sacrificial religion, atonement was undertaken through sacrafice. God, in offering a new covenent first fulfilled the old, why? Because God would have negated the essentiual concept of Logos without fulfillment, to simply declare the Levite law of the temple over would have meant that the order of Law under the Torah was cancelled, somthing God promised not to do. By accepting one, final and perfect sacrafice the Law was complete, not negated. Second, Easter was meaningless absent defiance of the will of man. Admitedly rising from the dead after dying in his sleep wold have been a pretty cool trick, but would lack in splender. The Christ transcends death not only in the body, but in confounding man's plan to retain the old Law. By re-ordering Life and Death into Death and Life Christ gives a living testament to teaching. So there you have the EAC ecclesiology on the Passion, what do other progressive Christians think? Is ther any meaning to Christian faith if we reject the Passion?
  10. Our Church is still growing, so here is what we do (did): In the local papers, with press releases and ads (the smaller the town the more likely you'll get your releases run - hard to get in the New York Times, the Tucson papers are pretty good about religious announcements. Also the Pennysaver (local classified rag), and on every local internet board we could find. When it's in season we advertise in the College papers and post around town. We meet in houses, on holidays we rent a local wedding Chapel. Little help for you there, we are part of the Old Catholic movement - so our worship is the Mass, we follow it with a meeting for social and theological discussion. The EAC was named by our Synod of Bishops, I named my parish St. Fechin's because he is my favorite celtic saint.
  11. I disagree that the tenet of any group or denomination can invalidate an ecclisology in general. Further, in the specific case here - the two don't even touch. Sola Scriptura stands for nothing more than the proposition that the Bible is a devine work (there are many branches on that tree), and thus the sole source of authority for Christians. For the record, our Church is part of the Old Catholic movement - and reject Sola Scriptura, but for different reasons The issue discussed here is what valid teaching does the Bible offer on the issue of Gay life. A rather compelling argument that it is possable to live a sanctified, Christain life and be Gay can be drwan from the Bible. Put simply the Bible posits two sexual sins (the OT has more but thats another thread). Adultory and fornication. Cor. does condemn lesbian and gay lifestyles, but attention should be paid to the entire verse - what is condemned is "giveing yourself over to...", a restatement of fornication. Christ and the Apostles wanted Christians to live a spiritual, God centered life. So while gays living a bathouse lifestyle are clearly fornicators - the offense lies not in who their partner is as much as that they are 'giving" themselves to the life of the flesh. No better or worse than straits who live for the party life. I can't see any justification for the argument that a Gay life is sanctified - but that's not the issue. Is a Gay life a bar to salvation? No - Christ in Matthew lays out the simple precepts for Grace: Keep the commandments, Love thy Neighbor, Love the Lord thy God. No easier, or harder for Gay people to do then strait people.
  12. I recently finished my seminary review of the Old Testament - http://www.stfechins.org/Theology.htm I present it not as a masterpiece of theological thought, but rather as an insight o how I moved far, far away from a sola scriptorus faith and into a progressive Christian view. Be aware, heresy abounds - I concluded that God, great and magnificent and wonderious is neither omnipotent or omniscisnt. Pleas efell free to share your thoughts.
  13. You are neither Jew or Gentile, man or woman, slave or free but are one in Jesus Christ - and that from the Church's least feminist of writers - the Apostle Paul. God made us Human. One of the things I love the most about my own church is its inclusivenss, my confessor is a woman, a Bishop of great wisdom and beauty at 80 something. I'm not a femineist - I'm a human. Men and women can, and should do all that they can in every honorable thing.
  14. This debate is going on all over the world between so many denominations. I begin each Mass I say with the instruction that all "Baptised Christians, repenting their sins are welcome to communion". I do this, of course because it is part of the ordo, and I have sworn to perform the Mass with regularity. I admire the Orthodox approach, they in essence have two communions - the sharing of bread, unsanctified by the wine or by the priest, with all present and then a seperate "communion" for the community - all are included in the Lord's Supper but the sanctity of the sacrament is preserved. I have petioned my Bishop to allow a varience (and may in my own lifetime actually get an answer, then again maybe not) on this. In the meantime - each faith community has to decide what the Lord's Supper means to them. If it is a memorial of the Lord, (lk 22:19) then it should be open to all who wish to honor Christ (membership in the club not being a pre-requisite to honor, I prayed for Reagan with his passing and wasn't a meber of that club). If, as my Church holds, this is a real communion with the Holy Spirit, an acceptance of the Pentecost through consecration, then many believe that to open this deepest of mysteries to those who don't believe (yet) diminishes the call. "Whenver two or more are gathered.." does not seem to include haveing a few who are gathered for some other name or reason. I am so sorry for your pain, and pleased at the same time that your walk with God is serious enough a force in your life that this matters deeply to you. We mean not to exclude, but to welcome. The welcome goes first to hearing the Spirit welcome you to the community, answering that call in your heart, and then with the outward sign of baptism -and then with communion in the community. Baptism (I believe and teach) does not save, nor make a Christian - it is the outward sign of the acceptance of Christ as your Rabbi, mentor and Lord. Have faith, brother we've been working on this for only a few thousand years - we're bound to get to the right answer anyday now. Yours in Christ,
  15. You may also want to see if there is an Old Catholic communion near you. (There are many different kinds, including my own Church). We are each different from one another - but all come from the same roots, generaly progressive sees that broke with Rome after Vatican I over the papal infallibility flap. http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html is a link to a listing. Good luck finding the right spiritual home.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service