Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] LBW & Episcopalians

Expand Messages
  • Michael T. Hiller
    I understand the depth of the commitment both by the diocese to St. Gregory s and the parish to the Diocese of California. No cheap shot was intended. I have
    Message 1 of 37 , Nov 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I understand the depth of the commitment both by the diocese to St.
      Gregory's and the parish to the Diocese of California. No cheap shot was
      intended. I have worshipped there and have been influenced by their
      ministry. It is, however, not of the norm.

      On 03/11/00 04:45, "Ron Miller" <rh.miller@...> wrote:

      > I will trust that this was not intended as a cheap shot. Although they push
      > the envelope of rubrics and challenge many of the commonly held liturgical
      > assumptions, I'd say that St. Gregory's is a genuine, not nominal,
      > Episcopal congregation which takes its place actively in the Diocese of
      > California and the Episcopal Church.
      >
      > <<And I'm writing from the other side of the country!!>>
      >
      > At 10:37 PM 11/2/2000 -0800, you wrote:
      >> Saint Gregory Nyssan, in San Francisco, regularly uses one in the Gospel
      >> Procession. Saint Gregory's is nominally Episcopalian, actually Eastern of
      >> some variety.
      >>
      >
      > -----
      > Ron Miller, Baltimore, MD (The Rev. Ronald H.) Coordinator
      > Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission
      > http://www.associatedparishes.org
      > Committed to Church Renewal since 1946
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > liturgy-l-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >


      The Rev. Mr. Michael T. Hiller
      Associate Pastor for Community and Liturgical Life
      Saint Francis Lutheran Church, San Francisco, CA.
      Mailto:priestly@...
      http://www.st-francis-lutheran.org
    • fcsenn@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/6/2000 5:14:46 AM Central Standard Time, trjack@groupz.net writes:
      Message 37 of 37 , Nov 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/6/2000 5:14:46 AM Central Standard Time,
        trjack@... writes:

        <<
        One of the problems with "reason", as importance as it is, for being
        considered a "norm" is that reasonable people can disagree about
        things. >>

        I have understood reason to be a tool, not a source of revelation. One uses
        reason to figure out what Scripture is saying and to discern the great
        tradition. One uses reason to apply the teachings of Scripture and tradition
        to a contemporary issue. One uses reason even to understand contemporary
        issues. Reason uses methods that enable us to discern---and even to call
        into question the methods themselves, as has recently been happening with
        regard to the enlightenment-inspired historical critical method in biblical
        interpretation. But reason cannot be enshrined as a norm for faith and
        practice. I don't even know what that would mean, other than to make some
        philosophic construct or contemporary worldview or scientific hypothesis the
        judge over Scripture and tradition, which has surely been known to happen.
        It happened in the Age of Enlightenment, in whose aftermath we are still
        lingering. But, Thomas, you should know that once that happened, the
        religion of the Reformation came to an end, because reason replaced faith and
        science trumped the authority of Scripture.

        FCSenn
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.