because Montgomery Shepherd III is a deeply closeted Anglo-Catholic with uncomfortable views on women's ordination

Andrew Davison is a treasure. While he was in Princeton we were lucky to have him up to Manhattan to preach a few times and it tickles me to know he's consulted on something as mundane and yet weighty as stamps.

my money's on a surprised Social Credit resurgence. it's time, they've waited long enough.

As a former Catholic and even now in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church I have never been very comfortable with the extremely high Marian devotions and language; I found myself nodding along to almost all of this.

a fascinating document, very well worth the read.

I think also of John 20:30 and 21:25 - there are many things which Jesus said and did and he may well have instructed the disciplines on 1st century germ theory. But the purpose of scripture is to record what he said and did for the purpose of salvation.

My difficulty is the necessity of believing scripture and Christ on the things that do matter (salvation, nature of God, etc.) - it's perplexing that Jesus is shown making an error about scripture in Mark's Gospel for this reason.

I didn't say error was sin - that is the quote from the Catechism regarding his human nature, which quotes from Heb. 4:15. The discussion is about the inerrancy of scripture and whether Christ erred as reported in the scriptures.

Re: your other post about things like tectonic theory, the Catechism further argues that Christ's knowledge was bound by time and place - the human Christ did not know all things, nor could he. This isn't "error." Those things he should know, he did, and those he shouldn't, didn't.

I didn't construct a binary here - that is the quote from the Catechism, via Gaudium Spes, paraphrasing Heb. 4:15. The question is whether Christ, in his hypostatic union of divine and human, could err. But then the question becomes whether he did - potential vs. reality.

The Gospels are clear on Christ's mastery of scripture, so maybe it's Mark that is in error on who the High Priest was.

I do think things get hairy e.g. the whole issue of Ahimeleh/Abiathar in the Gospels - either Christ erred (unlikely) or Scripture can err as the textual record of human experience of God's Word (more likely) but NOT in matters of salvation or the fundamental experience of God and Christ

Big fan of the RC Catechism (1.2.2.3) on this subject - specifically IV.470-474, e.g. Christ is "like us in all things but sin", had to learn and grow in wisdom, but also enjoyed "enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal"

Yeah even for someone at the high church end of my tradition it's a little surprising to hear objections from other ostensible Protestant traditions on the subject!

I don't think it's marginalizing to say a practice is fine, but only at a certain time and place!

Plenty of cultural religious practices are entirely fine, in their proper contexts - TEC's Book of Occasional Services includes authorized liturgies for blessing a Quinceñeara, for example! But I don't think it's strange as an Anglican to have a Reformed view on what the church sanctuary is for.