|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Consecration Will Include Objections
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
A friend of mine was sitting at General Synod once, doing some administrative role.
In front of her was a bald man with glasses who, at that meeting, presided over a substantial change to the understanding of the orders of the Church of England, a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.
Dyfrig, your point is unclear to me. It might make a little more sense to me if I agreed with you that the ordination of women as priests was a change to the threefold ministry of the Church.
I'm also unclear what you mean about encouraging the ministration of a woman whose ministry was not permitted in the C of E. There's no need to speak in coy hints, just say what you mean.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Ken, there is indeed a category distinction between the ordination of women (which I would regard as anthropological (sic) ) and of gay persons (which is ethical), but they are both theological, and the point that I was making was that opponents of both have used the same set of arguments - the irony is that active proponents of the first (btw, I am referring to Monica Furlong's assertion that your father allowed women priests to preside in services in his parish long before 1992) found ways around those arguments in 1992, but are using ones of the same type now.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
Can I ask a couple of questions of clarification?
What is the DH thread?
Canon Gene Robinson became Bishop-cosomething of New Hampshire on Sunday. What have been the responses of the rest of the Anglican Communion?
Cheers
Ebor
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Bracketed comments are of course addressed to Andrew.
Forgive me if my last but one post sounded condescending, but I cannot help but be amused by it all - to argue from the Bible or Tradition on one topic, but to argue around that very same Bible or Tradition on another, especially when I'd say that both Scripture and Tradition are (all things considered) for more explicitly against the presidency of women than they are against faithful, monogamous seme-sex relationships.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Ebor. The DH thread is the thread called "homosexuality and christianity" on the Dead Horses board. It contains a lengthy yet highly interesting discussion as to whether scripture rules out homosexual practice or not.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Ken wrote:
quote:
The opponents of the ordination of Gene Robinson . . . if they are being consistent have to accept that Gene Robinson is a priest, and is a bishop. At worst he is a sinful priest - which would certainly be a Bad Thing, but hardly a new thing in the Church.
This is Catholic doctrine as I was taught it and have always understood it. My confirmation class textbook in 1967-68, when I was 15, was the once-well-known "The Christian Faith", by C B Moss, who would in those days have been called a "Prayer Book Catholic". In Chapter 63, Moss wrote:
quote:
The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon’s minister, was an open unbeliever; but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)
The other textbook from which I was taught the Faith was "A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England", by E J Bicknell (another Prayer Book Catholic). His discussion of Article XXVI ends with the startling words,
quote:
"We have no reason to suppose that Judas' ministry was any less productive of good results than that of the other Apostles."
You can't get more emphatic than that!
So I really am anxious, given the importance of this issue to the future of the Anglican Communion, to grasp why some within the communion hold + Gene Robinson's orders to be invalid. To do so seems to contradict the doctrine of orders that I was taught and have always believed.
(I'm not seeking to argue about it - just to understand.)
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Talleyrand is an excellent example of how extremely basic matters which ought to have disqualified one from being ordained/consecrated, or in honesty directed that a biship step down, and the Church nonetheless recognizes the ordination valid and the works of the bishop as works of a bishop.
I keep asking this until I feel my head will explode, but what is so bloody different about this one sin (stipulating for purposes of argument that it is a sin) that the bishop of Nigeria gets to say that people in league with Satan have taken over the ECUSA? I mean, really. And what is so different about this one sin that it justifies a schism?
(I'll concede that the difference between ordaining women vs. ordaining gays, is that nobody was even then arguing that simply being female and engaging in physical acts of love as a woman was sinful or against scripture in some way)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Laura: I keep asking this until I feel my head will explode, but what is so bloody different about this one sin (stipulating for purposes of argument that it is a sin) that the bishop of Nigeria gets to say that people in league with Satan have taken over the ECUSA?
I think simply stated, it is a cultural taboo. I don't think anyone even really cares whether or not his orders are valid anyway. Seems like a moot point anyhow as it appears Nigeria and Kenya have declared the intention not to go to meetings where the ECUSA is present or to share communion. The story is here CNN
[ 04. November 2003, 14:58: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
MtP:
Don't think we haven't noticed that you haven't answered Erin's question.
Erin asked me a question? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Uh, where?
(And, yes, my assertation about the break with Scripture was bland and all that. First, I didn't want to go into DH material. Second, I was lazy. So there. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Yes siree, she did indeed, down there at the bottom of page 2:
quote:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
(Okay, it's a rhetorical question - but still!)
[ 04. November 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Bongo ]
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Bracketed comments are of course addressed to Andrew.
Forgive me if my last but one post sounded condescending, but I cannot help but be amused by it all - to argue from the Bible or Tradition on one topic, but to argue around that very same Bible or Tradition on another, especially when I'd say that both Scripture and Tradition are (all things considered) for more explicitly against the presidency of women than they are against faithful, monogamous seme-sex relationships.
You know that to answer this point would be to go into Dead Horses territory. It is enough to say that I don't agree with you at all, especially your last point.
I do find it condescending that you assume my father's views and mine are identical. Why on earth do you wheel this example out when you're engaging with me? For one thing I'm not bald and don't wear glasses.
[ 04. November 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: Andrew Carey ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
And not addressed to Mark......
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Oops. Sorry MtP!
I should not post hastily at work when I think the boss isn't looking!
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
(Okay, it's a rhetorical question - but still. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
I don't rant and rave about the illegality of it, (although I think when you put together the years of debate on this issue in ECUSA which had reached no conclusion on the principles involved, there is something very strange about it ending at this point with the consecration of a practising homosexual). I simply think the consecration is plain wrong.
I see no reason therefore why those who oppose this act in principle shouldn't take sanctions by refusing to pay tax to dioceses and national church bodies and indeed other measures to distance themselves from the consecration.
In short, Erin misunderstands.
[UBB for quote]
[ 04. November 2003, 15:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I still find it utterly staggering (to put it mildy) that +Gene is "causing" so much angst and twisting of knickers when it is blatently obvious that he will make a much better bishop then some of the dunderheads who have been bishops for years.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
I tend to have that effect on men. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think simply stated, it is a cultural taboo. I don't think anyone even really cares whether or not his orders are valid anyway. Seems like a moot point anyhow as it appears Nigeria and Kenya have declared the intention not to go to meetings where the ECUSA is present or to share communion. The story is here CNN
Not quite, the situation in Kenya is fairly nuanced:
quote:
In Kenya, Archbishop Nzimbi said yesterday that his church would now not accept any support from the US Church, including missionaries, though there were signs that the attitudes in his area were more complex. The Kenyan bishop of Eldoret, Thomas Kogo, announced that his diocese would not recognize Canon Robinson but would maintain its ties to the New Hampshire diocese.
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
The whole story can be found here.
I do agree with you about the “cultural taboo” part.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
This is from your article Try:
quote:
KENYA 2.5 million worshippers
Likelihood of schism? Has already separated - Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi became the first to formally sever ties with the Americans, saying yesterday that "the devil has entered the church".
Doesn't sound real nuanced to me. I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya. Whatever your view on this, I think it's asinine to say Nigeria has cut itself off. It would appear as though we're in a raft steadily moving further from the shore, like it or not.
[ 04. November 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!
No, the position of Nigeria which is represented in these reports is in fact well represented in a statement issued from the Church of Nigeria on behalf of a working group of the Primates of the global south (Kenya is certainly in agreement with that group). The statement can be found at:
Statement
This working group represents up to 20 of the Provinces. But indicates that each Province will work out what that impaired communion means within its own context and framework. It will be months, and certainly a year when the commission reports, before we know how the impairment of communion is actually carried through.
Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.
[Edited for link.]
[ 04. November 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!
No, the position of Nigeria which is represented in these reports is in fact well represented in a statement issued from the Church of Nigeria on behalf of a working group of the Primates of the global south (Kenya is certainly in agreement with that group). The statement can be found at:
Statement
This working group represents up to 20 of the Provinces. But indicates that each Province will work out what that impaired communion means within its own context and framework. It will be months, and certainly a year when the commission reports, before we know how the impairment of communion is actually carried through.
Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.
"Impaired communion" doesn't mean a [non-purgatorial language deleted]ing thing. We've had impaired communion with lots of people in lots of places over the years, primarily over the woman bishops thing. We still go to Lambeth and we're still part of the Anglican Communion.
As far as I know, only Peter Akinola has decided that he will not attend any event that the ECUSA attends. Since the ECUSA will still attend the Lambeth Conferences (see the ABC's very moderate statement.), if Peter Akinola doesn't change his mind he won't be attending Lambeth any time soon. The other provinces who've signed onto the Global South's statement (not every province in the Global South has) appear to be symbolically cutting their ties to the Diocese of New Hampshire or the ECUSA as a whole, but the only other concrete "consequence" of such impaired communion is Kenya's decision not to accept American money or missionaries. Mr. Akinola may find himself rather lonely.
[Edited for link in quote.]
[ 04. November 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I have no idea if Akinola intends not to go to Lambeth (& anyway there will be a lot of water under a lot of bridges before that cmes round again). But the statement in that link doesn't mention that at all. The main thrust of it is that they want alternative episcopal oversight for ECUSA parishes that reject the consecration.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
"Impaired communion" doesn't mean a [non-purgatorial language deleted]ing thing. We've had impaired communion with lots of people in lots of places over the years, primarily over the woman bishops thing. We still go to Lambeth and we're still part of the Anglican Communion.
As far as I know, only Peter Akinola has decided that he will not attend any event that the ECUSA attends. Since the ECUSA will still attend the Lambeth Conferences (see the ABC's very moderate statement.), if Peter Akinola doesn't change his mind he won't be attending Lambeth any time soon. The other provinces who've signed onto the Global South's statement (not every province in the Global South has) appear to be symbolically cutting their ties to the Diocese of New Hampshire or the ECUSA as a whole, but the only other concrete "consequence" of such impaired communion is Kenya's decision not to accept American money or missionaries. Mr. Akinola may find himself rather lonely.
Who knows Try. what will happen tomorrow? I don't think that Archbishop Akinola will be alone in what he says about non-attendance at meetings at which ECUSA are also represented. You seem pretty sure that ECUSA bishops will be at the next Lambeth Conference -- you may be right, they may be there in a non-voting status or they may not be there at all.
You seem to recognise Archbishop Akinola as a plain 'Mr'. Well that's your prerogative. But as far as I'm aware there were no questions raised by any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion over whether his consecration should have taken place.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
/Pedantic mode on
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.
The Primate of Australia has stated, more or less, that he thinks we will all get over it and its a bit sad, but, you know, can't we all be friends...? The only way to have an "official" impaired communion between the provinces of Australia and ECUSA would be by General Synod Vote - and that aint gonna happen any time soon.
OTOH the Diocese of Sydney has yammered on about sin and immorality and the bible - and said that Big Gene is not welcome in their diocese. To quote Gene himself "Oh, I'd be far too busy to teach in one of the Archbishop's Sunday Schools anyway!"
/pedantic mode off
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Also, MaryO who was, like, there, started a thread when she could have posted her report here:
quote:
I was in Minneapolis for GC, and I was in Durham for the consecration. I was also at a party thrown by St. John's Portsmouth on Saturday night--a lovely do, and especially gracious since their rector (a charming man by the name of Tim Rich+) will be leaving to be +VGR's Canon to the Ordinary in March.
Saturday night, the street was blocked off by police and fire vehicles. Security guards were at the door and searched people's bags. I got a huge hug from +VGR when he came in, and yes, he was wearing body armor--as he had been in Minneapolis. His partner Mark and daughter Ella were there as well, of course. (I was teasing Mark and said, "I saw the perfect T-shirt for you--it says, 'Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?' above a picture of a basket." He laughed.)
The party ran until 11, and then the guards surrounded +VGR and his family and took them out. (Some of the rest of us found a pub that was still open and repaired thataway.)
Sunday morning lots of people who were staying at the University of New Hampshire Conference Center had breakfast at the dining room--all you can eat for $16.95 (and very good food it was). Folks wandered around the tables greeting each other, I and I got to say hello to +Herb Donovan, whose wife interviewed me for her book on 9/11; Louie Crew, +Orris Walker (LI), and a variety of other people.
I got to the conference center at 2:00, and we had to walk all the way around the front of the soccer field, past the media satellite trucks, and past the protesters. My friend Jan Nunley+ (deputy director of ENS) wandered off to chat with CNN reporters, and finally emerged to go vest with the other processing clergy.
The lay people I was with and I got into a sort-of line in the crowded lobby to get wanded by security. Bags were opened, cell phones examined, shoes removed, and then we got in to get our seats. My group had yellow tickets, which were supposed to get us reserved seats--but someone had forgotten to set up such a section (sigh). Since it was so crowded, I walked around the arena and sat opposite most of the congregation, next to the choir. I was so far forward I could see the musicians' music. I also had a first-rate view of +VGR, his family and presenters, and the attending bishops, for the first part of the service.
(To Be Continued)
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Sorry Degs, I can't give you chapter and verse right now, because I'm just checking in before flying out of the door. I may be able to get back to you this evening. Dr Williams said this in the press conference after the Primates Meeting, very clearly and I have since then checked with the Lambeth Palace Press Office. I can't remember whether these comments were reported in press coverage after the Primates Meeting a few weeks ago, but it should be fairly easy to check it out.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I'm just a Presbyterian (though that does make me, technically, a coadjutor-bishop with all my fellow presbyters!)
Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted apparent fact (I don't want to use the word 'alleged', as it has pejorative overtones!)of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces? (I am of course open to correction on the facticity of this.)
I'm having a hard time seeing this aspect (validity) of the issue as revolving around anything other than his openness about his lifestyle.
I was once invited to a charity 'race night' (one of those evenings where nugatory 'bets' are placed on the outcome of videos of horse races - nothing to do with the KKK!) by the Rotary Club I was a member of. I went along wearing my clerical collar, said grace at the buffet meal, and then placed some money, in the form of the aforesaid 'nugatory bets', on the outcome of a couple of races. I was gratified when I lost. It was that sort of evening.
In the course of the event, one of the guys came up and thanked me for my attendance, which was much appreciated. He noted, with express pleasure and a little surprise, that I had come and participated attired as a clergyman. (He was an elder, and I suspect a little uneasy, before the evening, about my likely attitude to his participation.) My unthinking and instant response was "Well, if it was wrong, I shouldn't be here at all , should I?"
I can understand people believing and saying that Gene Robinson shouldn't have been consecrated because of his lifestyle. But it seems to me that he has become a storm centre because of his openness and honesty. and that worries me a lot.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted . . . fact of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces?
Like you, I'm still trying to get my brain around all of this, and I have just one small contribution.
Last night somebody explained to me their objection. It goes something like this . . .
My friend believes that homosexuality is a sin. (see thread in Dead Horses) My friend believes that GR is therefore an unrepentant sinner. If the sin was say, stealing, then we would expect GR to say "I'm sorry I stole, but it was for a good cause - helping the needy etc." However in this case GR is saying "I have done nothing wrong." And he continues to openly sin.
This was a tad bit enlightening to me. Hope it helps. I'm still trying to figure all this out.
eeG
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
eeGad: I can see your friend's position and understand it. It's just that I'm not quite sure it fits the situation. Isn't it more like having a friend who believes that 'private property is theft', and on that basis objects to the consecration of a bishop because the bishop, although he believes that theft is wrong, doesn't believe baldly that 'private property is theft', says so publicly, owns private property, and doesn't see hmself as a thief?
Whereas several other bishops, not contradicting the opinion that 'private property is theft' (whether they believe it or not) have ben consecrated without fuss because they have their cottages in the Lake District and their Swiss bank accounts discreetly out of sight. I'm not sure that you could class either kind of bishop as an 'unrepentant sinner' - which would certainly be the case with the bishop who writes sermons denouncing the evils of private property from the seclusion of the Surbiton semi he inherted from his granny! (I presume there is no-one in the Anglican episcopal order whose situation in terms of the present debate is analogous to this!)
But this all raises the question of what it means to be a sinner, and a repentant sinner. Is a sinner one whose state is sinful, and who acknowledges this, and asks for and receives forgiveness and acceptance, or rather one who is currently, or has been in the past, involved in doing a sinful thing? Is a repentant sinner one who confesses unworthiness and trusts to grace, or one who says "I did A, B, C, I know A, B, C, were wrong, and I repent of A, B, C?" I am somewhat taken aback that so many of the evangelical opponents of the Consecration seem to articulate the issue more in terms of 'sins' than 'sin'. This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.
And what of the man who says "I am unworthy, I trust entirely to God's grace and mercy, I have done many things in my life which were wrong, here are the ones I remember, I repent specifically and explicitly of them - but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."
Just asking...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Well, now its official
Muslims disown gay cleric. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Is this for real?
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.
Yeah, I read that with interest. It sounds like the main problem he had was with how it was done, with haste, without adequate consulation and all that. He did praise the statement of the Southern Primates though, which goes beyond questions of process.
Still, the ++ of Perth doesn't have reputation of being very conservative, does he? I don't know much about him, but I think I see why you're a bit surprised.
BTW, the statement by the Southern Primates is also interesting, I think. It says communion is impaired but doesn't break it off. And reading between the lines at the end, it seems they don't entirely agree on how to proceed from here.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
I think the primate of Australia is just a little bit afraid of rocking the boat. Won't do anything to encourage the Jensens blah blah blah...
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
On the other hand, the other ++Peter doesn't seem to be too concerned about getting the rowlocks under the water. I read the Southern Primates' Statement and wondered if he might not have been just a little disappointed that it wasn't as tough as it may have been expected.
<stands back and admires that last woolly sentence. Am I an Anglican yet or what?>
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage*
Shipmate
# 4937
|
Posted
The statement by the ++ Peter Carnley reads to me as an each-way bet. His concern about process is, I think, widely shared outside ECUSA. Similar words were uttered by others when a certain bishop "jumped the gun" on women's ordination. I certainly don't see any suggestion in his remarks that he will try to escalate the issue. Indeed, he specifically hoses down talk of schism.
quote:
Alt Wally said:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.
I find this extraordinary, and can only assume it comes from a lack of understanding about the Province of Australia. Sure, Sydney is posturing about it, and ++ Peter J has declared + Gene unwelcome as an official visitor in Sydney. I wouldn't let it go to his head - being persona non grata in Sydney isn't that big an achievement. They keep threatening to cut the rest of the country loose, too, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. As for the rest of Australia, that's a very diverse and complex creature, comprising some who are of a mind with Sydney and others of a very different complexion.
{edited because making sense is A Good Thing}
[ 06. November 2003, 07:46: Message edited by: Cranmer's baggage ]
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 729 | From: the antipodes | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Psyduck:
If I have it right, you're saying that you see the "unrepentant sinner" argument as based on the idea that (from the conservative viewpoint) +Robinson is committing a mortal sin and failing to repent of it?
I'm highly confused by this whole issue. The conservatives need to clarify their position, if they have a single one, I think. Taking the following starting points:
a) There's such a thing as a mortal sin
b) Active homosexuality is a mortal sin
Then, there are as I see it 5 reasons for opposing +GR:
1. He's a sinner
2. He's an unrepentant sinner
3. He sets a bad example
4. He teaches dangerous heresy.
Now, I've yet to see 4 given as a reason from the conservative side but it's the only one that keeps me on the fence, and the reason I don't jump off on the conservative side is because I'm not convinced of the validity of a) and b).
Taking the others in turn, we have
1. Donatism
2. Donatism
3. We're not meant to imitate bishops.
So, can any conservatives reading this please clarify, do you believe 4 to be your argument, and if not, can you explain what it could be? The more mathematically inclined will notice that I haven't defined number 5. It starts with "H" and upsets people.
Note to hosts: I'm not flogging the Dead Horse. I'm genuinely trying to get at the conservative position here. The loyal opposition's position seems clear to me - that at least b) above is false.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Muslims disown gay cleric.
So, after all the pontificating about how Gene Robinson's consecration would do irreparable harm to Christian/Muslim relations in Africa... the first statement we see by African Muslims on the matter is one of solidarity with the stance taken by their homegrown Anglicans. It warms your heart.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
I'm highly confused by this whole issue.
Me too. Let's start a club!
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.
How astute of you! Indeed he was raised RC, but in currently a member of ECUSA.
quote:
By psyduck:
"but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."
I think this right here is the crux of the matter. And as it is Dead Horse territory, I will not comment further, except to say that I now understand why these events have created such a horrible muddle. I doubt that a clear conclusion will ever be found on this one.
eeG
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Cranmer's baggage, I think it's probably a combination of my tendency to project Sydney as the rest of Australia and the incipient pessimism I've been feeling about our ability to stay together.
I'm trying to remain positive.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Grey Face said:
So, can any conservatives reading this please clarify, do you believe 4 to be your argument, and if not, can you explain what it could be?
Ok, I’ll bite. Firstly, you can forget all about Donatism, St. Augustine and the whole notion of valid consecration. My objections are not rooted in those areas. As far as I am concerned, GR was validly consecrated in the light of Article 26 of the 39 Articles.
The argument is not about the technical validity, but rather the ethical wisdom, the moral correctness, and the ecclesiological desirability of the consecration, in the light of the raging moral, ethical and theological debate in the wider Anglican Communion, and indeed, the wider church.
The consecration of Gene Robinson was a major political statement that was intended to send a very powerful message. You only have to look at the ceremony itself - televised from a sports stadium - to get the flavour of something very unusual taking place. It was more akin to a political rally.
During the service of consecration of an Anglican bishop, the episcopal candidate is charged to live “…soberly righteously and godly, that you may show yourself in all things as an example of good works…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR is not the first gay bishop by a long way, but he is the first before his consecration to be completely open and in-your-face with it, especially in the light of his married past. By contrast, Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow, only came out after he retired (and also after he was widowed).
As far as ECUSA is concerned, GR is not in unrepentant sin, and he is living a godly life. However, as someone who has opposed the consecration of GR, numbers 2 (unrepentant sin) and 3 (bad example) are immediate candidates for me.
Another charge to the episcopal candidate is to “…teach and exhort wholesome doctrine…” and “…to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR’s consecration has demonstrated de facto that the dominant party within ECUSA consider an intimate gay relationship, and its implications for moral and pastoral theology, “wholesome teaching” and not some “erroneous doctrine contrary to God’s word”.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are now obliged to agree with that statement. The revisionist case proposed has now been deemed by events to have been accepted. Legitimate dissent with integrity is no longer possible in NH. It’s either shut up and agree, or get out.
I am not sure if heresy (number 4) is the right word for that, but it represents a dangerous illiberalism of the worst kind. I include a link to a very perceptive article by Janet Daley in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. She uses the phrase “liberalism militant”. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The argument is not about the technical validity, but rather the ethical wisdom, the moral correctness, and the ecclesiological desirability of the consecration, in the light of the raging moral, ethical and theological debate in the wider Anglican Communion, and indeed, the wider church.
The consecration of Gene Robinson was a major political statement that was intended to send a very powerful message. You only have to look at the ceremony itself - televised from a sports stadium - to get the flavour of something very unusual taking place. It was more akin to a political rally.
Huh? The Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of New Hampshire chose someone with whom they had been working for years. They knew +GR very well, and was calling him--not making a statement. Bishops Diocesan are not appointed in the ECUSA.
And, about the consecration taking place in a sports stadium. That is not unusual in the United States. While there are a few very large Episcopal/Anglican cathedrals on the North American continent (New York, NY; Washington, DC; Victoria, BC), most cathedrals in the US would be hard pressed to hold 1500 people. Typically they would hold closer to 500 people or so. For example, rather than limiting attendance to using St. Mark's Cathedral, +Vincent Warner was consecrated the Bishop of Olympia in a building that served as, among other things, the hockey rink for the Seattle Thunderbirds.
When a crowd is expected, expect a consecration in the US to take place someplace other than the cathedral--if the diocese even has a cathedral. (Not all dioceses in the US have a cathedral.)
quote:
During the service of consecration of an Anglican bishop, the episcopal candidate is charged to live “…soberly righteously and godly, that you may show yourself in all things as an example of good works…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR is not the first gay bishop by a long way, but he is the first before his consecration to be completely open and in-your-face with it, especially in the light of his married past. By contrast, Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow, only came out after he retired (and also after he was widowed).
So, you are saying that any candidate for bishop needs to be bearing false witness against all his neighbors?
quote:
As far as ECUSA is concerned, GR is not in unrepentant sin, and he is living a godly life. However, as someone who has opposed the consecration of GR, numbers 2 (unrepentant sin) and 3 (bad example) are immediate candidates for me.
What is so bad about his example?
+GR tried therapy and marriage. As in many, many other similar cases, the marriage was ill advised. Instead of living a lie, he admitted his error in getting married. He did not run from the responsiblities of his children. He now is living a faithful life with another person.
When I was teaching high school back in South Dakota, a gay student of mine was depressed enough to have very well thought out suicide plans (location, weapon, etc.). I really wish I would have had someone like +GR to point to, saying there is a life for you.
Let's ask the real question: Was +GR called by God to be bishop?
Of course, I would say most of us do not have a definitive, above any question, answer on this (unless you are the Bishop of Rome, that is). We may have our reasons for why we believe why we do, but there should always an element of doubt.
If you cannot accept the possibility--even if remote--that the consecration of +GR is of God, then I think the choice of the next pope will be clear.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Statement from Anglican Church in Tanzania
quote:
We shall not recognize the Ministry of Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as a Bishop of the Church because he is not;
quote:
We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:
i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;
ii. Bishops who permit the blessing of same sex unions in their dioceses;
iii. Gay priests and deacons;
iv. Priests who bless same sex unions.
Is this the most "drastic" statement yet?
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Statement from Anglican Church in Tanzania
quote:
We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:
i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;
I suspect this bit means that they're out of communion with Rowan (hasn't he admitted to ordaining homosexuals whilst AB of Wales?). Therefore they have presumably just declared themselves out of the Anglican Communion.
*Sigh*
Peronel
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Looks like another objection has been registered Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The article is from yesterday, but I believe the resolution in question passed today.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I wasn't around when the ordination of women was a big item of contention (as opposed to whatever it is now). Was it this big? Was it this bitter?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Who are Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry, and why don't they want to be called Episcopal anymore?
[ 09. November 2003, 11:38: Message edited by: jugular ]
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage*
Shipmate
# 4937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
I wasn't around when the ordination of women was a big item of contention (as opposed to whatever it is now). Was it this big? Was it this bitter?
It was at least this big, but we were all in the end saved from great catastrophe by due process - which is why some of us are so upset by the NH action. Was it this bitter? Wrong tense - for some it still is bitter. IMHO, in terms of comparison, you ain't seen nothing yet. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Jugular,
Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry was founded in the 70's by an Australian, Bp. Alf Stanway. It has always stood in the evangelical tradition of Anglicanism, and has strong links to the African church, for whom it is a favoured US training establishment. This link is a natural one, since Alf Stanway was a missionary in Africa for a long time. My guess is that they are thinking of dropping the Episcopal from their title because they don't want to be associated with the "liberal" ethos of ECUSA.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 729 | From: the antipodes | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. Oops!
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. Oops!
Good thing they didn't say, "Anathema!"
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
