u/Economy-Point-9976

This is a potentially very explosive topic, so I want to say at the start I have no intention of embarrassing or identifying any specific person or denomination.

Nor, to be clear, am I asking about abuse of power, etc., that sometimes may lead to a question of safeguarding or worse.

It's just that.... In my six decades I have to say that the overwhelming majority of my interactions with clergy have been positive. Once or twice, however, things were said that, even if they did not sting immediately, hurt afterwards.

So, for example, one member of the clergy once dismissed my faith as incoherent. That hurt. Of course it's incoherent, and something I feel my way to, n the darkness sometimes. But to say it like that....

Have any of you any such things to share, in hopes of catharsis?

The Homilies were originally appointed to be read as sermons by curates who did not have a preaching licence. They are very long, and topical, and broken down into parts.

Can any of the more historical experts here point me to a reference for a traditional annual rota for them, arranged by week and feast?

I am of course assuming such a thing exists.

I'd like to have such a plan to integrate with the yearly prayer and lectionary cycle. I could always come up with an arrangement for myself, I suppose, but really one with some authority behind it would be preferable.

Thank you very much in advance!

I am specifically asking about the traditional Church of England practice when praying from the appointed 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

It is, of course, as the rubrics make clear, inserted after the litany at morning prayer on the first day of Lent, as well as whenever the bishop in ordinary appoints.

I am wondering whether there is any tradition of reading it on any other day of the year. The web search gives conflicting information, and some large language models seem to determine that the commination is also read on ember days, which is not something I trust.

The Canadian practice, now often omitted, was after 1962 to read a "penitential service" on Ash Wednesday -- a highly truncated commination without the curses and with very softened exhortations; I don't think it was specifically intended to be read at any other times, although the 1962 rubrics do allow it on any particular occasion as necessary.

But I am asking about the traditional English custom.

This is about our creed. but _not_ the filioque.

Can anyone with a proper theological background explain the meaning of these two words?

The Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.

What is the difference?

I imagine this is surely connected to the Son of God being the Word of God, by which all things were made, and to the Spirit hovering over the void. But how?

I completely accept thay the correct explanation for divine mysteries is that they are divine mysteries. But it is clearly insufficient here. The councils chose these very words, in the original Greek, of course, because they meant something specific. Except for the argument about the Spirit priceeding _filioque_, they continue to mean what they were intended to mean.

What do they mean?

Of course any answer to this question is utter speculation, fantasy, and surely at base reflects our view of the world and perhaps our hopes for it.

There is an Eastern tradition that Pilate, no doubt influenced by his wife (Procla, if I'm not mistaken) repented of his judgement and converted.

Tertullian nentions an early tradition of Pilate writing a letter of justification to Tiberius. Of course this has been dismissed as forgery or pious fantasy or error.

What do you think? In your mind, did or could have Pilate become a Christian?

On Trinity Sunday, our rector gave a very thought-provoking sermon on the Trinity. As this topic is a difficult one, I think I'll have to go ask him to clarify.

In the meantime, to try to get my own thoughts straight, I'd like to put down the essential points of the sermon. They are:

* Christianity is monotheistic;

* Faith in the Trinity is ultimately what separates Christianity from non-Christianity;

* The nature of the Trinity is a dangerous topic because almost everything that can be said about it is heretical;

* It is therefore a holy mystery;

* But just saying that does not lead to understanding;

* So the answer is, the Trinity is how God has chosen to show himself to us;

* Conversely, from our side, the Trinity is how we perceive God, how we explain our relationship with him:

* Consider how the same person can be our father, our teacher, our friend. Our father gives us love and protection, our teacher offers us wisdom and enlightenment and shows us our way in the world, and our friend gives us unconditional comfort;

* In any case, the Trinity is our relationship to God.

Note the indirect analogy. No precise parallel was ever drawn.

My question: is the analogy modalism? I don't think it is, not from what I understand if it. It's not a matter of God "appearing" at various times in various guises, just being three distinct person(a)s in one.

Nevertheless, I have been provoked into some discomfort by this. Which may not be a bad thing.

As I said, I'll ask my priest for further discussion on this. Before I do, I'd like to ask for any thoughts anyone may have.

In any case, the last thing I want is to accuse anyone of anything. But somehow I need help getting my own thoughts in order before I go to my priest.

Thank you!

EDIT add: Thank you very much to everyone who contributed; all of you have really helped me clarify my thoughts. I think some will not agree with my conclusions, or perhaps even say I've fallen into heresy -- but still:

* Everything we say about God is grossly insufficient because it cannot even begin to grasp the transcendent and infinite;

* the Trinity is a human word to help us begin to understand how God has chosen to present himself to us;

* Implicit in this term are the relations between the persons of the Trinity on the one hand, and on the other how we perceive the persons, and therefore how we as human beings (imperfectly and ultimately through faith alone) relate to them and thus the one triune God;

* It is perilous to presume to speculate further about the internal relations, since they exist primarily outside Creation, but the formulae about uncreated, begotten, and proceeding within the Nicene creed reflect, most likely, the limits of our understanding of what Christ himself said, as recorded in John 13-17;

* God is above and beyond binary logic, but binary logic governs all human attempts at understanding;

* Some, imperfect, rational understandung if the Trinity is desirable, lest the concept become repugnant magical mumbo-jumbo;

* All human analogies are heretical modalism if they are taken to _define_ the Trinity, but may be helpful if they partially illuminate some revealed aspect if it;

* Viewed in that light, my priest's analogy is helpful, unobjectionable, and not heretical;

* Based on everything he said, I am convinced he did not fall into definitional modalism.

Again, thank you to everyone without exception. Even if you feel we disagree, I accept what you had to say with gratitude.

I'm no developer, power user, or anything tech really. Classical humanities/greats artsie.

My basic needs are pretty well at the level of a Chromebook, except that I do a lot of editing, proofreading and typesetting work, in four languages.

For the last year I've worked on an OpenBSD laptop with xfce, texworks, libreoffice and chromium installed.

No issues, no troubles, no glitches, no pain.

I've even figured out how to make persistently reconnecting wifi connections in the cafes I often work at.

Thank you to the developers!! I'm not rich, but I hope my donation to the OpenBSD foundation will help keep you guys afloat for maybe six hours or so. :)

I apologise if this question has perhaps been discussed to the point of nausea, but it's come up again with the Westminster Confession discussion a few days ago.

I think I'm probably "reformed". I am uncomfortable with Marian devotions, with veneration of icons and relics, and with the very idea of theophagy inherent in transubstantiation; and I'm generally accepting of the absence of public prayer for the dead, although it would bring comfort and a kind of closure for the living. And I completely reject (always have) the Bishop of Rome's arrogation of supreme authority. So I'm generally in tune with the spirit of the 16th century Reformation.

But is "reformed" necessarily Calvinist?

In faith I cannot accept (in the strongest possible terms!) any of the five TULIP points. It seems to me also that Calvinism has been on an ever-increasing arc of stridency since Calvin. I could be wrong, of course.

My basic question: the way the term is used, are all reformed Christians "Reformed" (as "Dutch", "Presbyterian", etc.)? Does the capitalisation matter? What do you rhink?

Edit: rephrased question in last paragraph.

I live in a part of Canada where the politics are currently extremely murky, and the news tonight is particularly grim. (Imagine, if you will, the entire official provincial electoral list being doxxed, with names, addresses, emails and telephone numbers, by and for the benefit of separatists financed by supporters of a foreign government to our south.)

I read the entire daily office straight through -- morning, mid-day and evening prayer from the BCP, with all the readings and some extra prayers.

It is such a relief. Faith in God restores faith in the world.