Thread: Ecumenical brou-ha-ha in San Francisco Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023936
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Apparently the Episcopal Bishop was stuck in the basement while at the installation of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/05/bishop-bruhaha-in-san-francisco/comment-page-1/
The disagreement of what happens is whether the Episcopal Bishop arrived early or late. If he arrived late, then the RCs had a point in holding him until a suitable moment when they could let him in. If he arrived early or on time, then there is reason to suspect that it was intentional, probably because the RCs did not like the open letter he wrote.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
He says he arrived five minutes before he was told to arrive. So, that adds the question of whether he was told the right time, and by whom.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
I think the Archbishop needs to get his entire staff to a communications course because I am not impressed with what's been coming out of the ArchDio of SF since he got appointed.
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think the Archbishop needs to get his entire staff to a communications course because I am not impressed with what's been coming out of the ArchDio of SF since he got appointed.
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
I'm no expert in RCC politics, but the cynic in me thinks perhaps his elevation was because of what comes out of his mouth.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
I'm no expert in RCC politics, but the cynic in me thinks perhaps his elevation was because of what comes out of his mouth.
Yes, I have said in other places I wonder what rock they dug this Archbishop out from under because he doesn't seem to understand the concept of "San Francisco". And, you know, "designated drivers"...
[ 07. October 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
There's been a lot of vitriol on conservative RC blogs regarding Bishop Marc's pastoral letter to his own diocese, which for whatever reason many RCs are construing as a welcome letter to Archbishop Cordelione. They put "welcome" in scare-quotes, though, when they refer to it.
I can't figure out where they get that, given that the letter is titled, "Letter to the Diocese of California concerning the installation of Salvatore Cordileone as Archbishop of San Francisco."
Many Episcopalians in the diocese, including many former Catholics, are really upset by the appointment and the prospect of closing or changing Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the Castro (which, IMO, is doing the work of Jesus, but conservative Catholics don't see it that way).
In his letter (as I read it), Bishop Marc is assuring those members of his diocese who worry that Bishop Marc's attendance of the installation (which we now know didn't happen) and his interest in working with the Catholic Archdiocese might lead to compromise over +Marc's stand against discrimination against LGBT persons that +Marc intends to "make no peace with oppression." Yet as he speaks of his intention to work with +Cordelione, he can't be equating the Archbishop with an oppressor, which is how many of the conservative RC bloggers and commenters are taking it.
Long ago, Thomas Merton worried about our culture becoming too slogan-oriented, so that we were losing our ability to hear and communicate with one another. It's gotten worse. We're only listening for buzz-words now. We need more rigorous schooling in grammar and context! It's nearly impossible to express the delicate nuances of a situation and be understood, or even listened to. Same in national politics, same in churches now, sadly.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He says he arrived five minutes before he was told to arrive. So, that adds the question of whether he was told the right time, and by whom.
Although the question of when he arrived vs. when he was told to arrive isn't all there is to it... According to his account (here), he was actively prevented from being escorted upstairs with the Greek Orthodox delegation, who were present in the same room as him.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
I am sure many of us will be interested to read how this unfortunate episode in strained ecumenical relations continues to unfold!
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think the Archbishop needs to get his entire staff to a communications course because I am not impressed with what's been coming out of the ArchDio of SF since he got appointed.
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
I'm no expert in RCC politics, but the cynic in me thinks perhaps his elevation was because of what comes out of his mouth.
And if it continues, then he's a shoe-in for a quick promotion. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out how to quickly jump the ranks. Thankfully, most priests are smarter than that.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Yes, I have said in other places I wonder what rock they dug this Archbishop out from under because he doesn't seem to understand the concept of "San Francisco".
He was born and grew up in San Diego, and is a jazz musician. He has a PhD in theology, is a top notch canon lawyer, likes the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine mass), and is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. It seems to me that he's in SF because he understands "the concept of SF" all too well, opposes strongly what is non-Catholic about it, and has the skill set to make a difference.
I don't assume for a second that what happened to the Episcopal bishop was anything other than a mishap. However, having read that letter of +Andrus to his diocese, it is just as well that he wasn't present. +Andrus managed to say one positive thing about ++Cordileone, in a letter which otherwise is basically all about disagreeing with him - and about using potential discontent with Cordileone's installation for a bit of sheep-stealing (hint, hint). Nice.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I heard something about it, but didn't realize that it was the Episcopal bishop. What a mess!
Salvatore Cordileone, the new RC archbishop, was selected directly by the pope. (Which, I presume, means the pope wants to rein in SF, one way or another.)
I was very unimpressed with the archbishop when he was interviewed on KQED public radio's show "Forum", in August. He came across as stiff, secretive, uncommunicative, suspicious, and extremely unpersonable. (He may simply be someone who interviews badly, but...)
His main concerns about abuse by clergy seemed to be "we brought shame on ourselves" and quibbles about the maximum age a victim could be and still be a child.
IMHO, the one good thing about him is that he cares about immigrants' rights.
You'd think that, even if the pope wants someone here who is doctrinely strict, he could at least choose someone better at relating to people. Why would anyone who doesn't already hold strict doctrine listen to what this guy has to say??
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
"our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers are welcome in the Episcopal Church"
Hint , hint. Indeed!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
In his letter (as I read it), Bishop Marc is assuring those members of his diocese who worry that Bishop Marc's attendance of the installation (which we now know didn't happen) and his interest in working with the Catholic Archdiocese might lead to compromise over +Marc's stand against discrimination against LGBT persons that +Marc intends to "make no peace with oppression." Yet as he speaks of his intention to work with +Cordelione, he can't be equating the Archbishop with an oppressor, which is how many of the conservative RC bloggers and commenters are taking it.
If Bishop Marc came out and said that +Cordelione was a bigoted, homophobic etc, then the Roman Church would have every right to not invite him and to view him as an obstacle to ecumenism.
However, simply stating that the Episcopal Church disagrees with the Roman Church on a justice issue and that it believes it is the right one, is not actually insulting the Roman Church.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Not inviting someone to an event because they oppose your ethical values or because you disapprove of their ethical values is fair enough. Inviting them, then delaying them in the basement so that they miss the event seems a little on the childish side.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I have been enthralled by this brouhaha the past few days so I have read a lot of reports and articles about it all. In the comboxes the crux of so many comments seem to be "he's lying.... no HE's lying .... oh, no he isn't, HE is lying". As it happens I think it's all just a cock-up and no-one is actually lying.
It's hardly news that there are differences in approach and belief between the RC Church and TEC. But really this is all very odd. Clearly Andrus loathes Cordelione and he's not letting that be hidden.
Firstly, what an astonishing letter to the diocese to mark the arrival of a new RC bishop. What exactly was the point of it? It reads simply as "there are people who don't like him and let me re-assure you I don't either". Or is there some hidden point I'm not getting?
Andrus might well have been there ON TIME but he was in the WRONG PLACE. He was in the vesting area where the RC and Orthodox bishops were vesting, not where the other ecumenical guests were vesting. The Orthodox bishops processed and were seated with the RC bishops in the sanctuary - see here. Video footage here.
The ecumenical relationship the Catholic Church has with the Orthodox is different from its relationships with other churches. Other ecumenical guests had vested elsewhere, processed in earlier and were seated elsewhere in the Cathedral. All of them, by the way, RC and Orthodox bishops and other ecumenical guests, vested in the Conference Centre beneath the Cathedral.
Andrus was asked to wait, since the proceedings were already underway and he was not going to be seated with the RC and Orthodox bishops. The ceremony begins at the door of the Cathedral, and taking him in then would have been obtrusive. The RC people have made clear that he they were waiting for an opportunity to seat him. Clearly he felt snubbed and decided to leave. When they came for him he was gone. He obviously did not hang around for long.
What's the first thing he does? He takes to the internet on his diocesan news page. An Archdiocesan official issues an apologetic clarification, indicating no offence was intended. So Andrus responds with a blog post in effect calling him a liar and saying he was "detained in a basement". Yup, just like everyone else had been before they were seated in the Cathedral.
So having publicly dissed Cordelione prior to his installation he now publicly dissed him afterwards by making out he was terribly badly treated and was the victim of some dark forces trying to "detain" him in "a basement". This surely is very odd behaviour.
It seems to me Andrus is intent on conducting his relationship with Cordelione via the megaphone. And Cordelione is the one who should be singled out for opprobrium in all this? I don't think so.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Just to add - I don't think it was the fault of Andrus that he was in the wrong place for the vesting - someone obviously escorted him there and that's how it all went wrong.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
It's all most unedifying all the way round. However, if ever there were a case for Anglicising an Italian surname, surely this would be it. Sounds like a mafia don. Really, not a good connotation in the present state of the RCC in America.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Andrus might well have been there ON TIME but he was in the WRONG PLACE. He was in the vesting area where the RC and Orthodox bishops were vesting, not where the other ecumenical guests were vesting.
...
It seems to me Andrus is intent on conducting his relationship with Cordelione via the megaphone. And Cordelione is the one who should be singled out for opprobrium in all this? I don't think so.
If he was in the wrong place, it could only be because that was where he was escorted or directed by the archbishop's staff. And no one there realized a mistake had been made and escorted him to the correct location? And no one bothered to explain then and there? Now the incompetence of staff is more the responsibility of the person in charge but it seems an apology is owed to Andrus (as for sheep tempting, both sides have been engaged in it and I don't think Andrus or the TEC is setting up an ordinariate). Cordelione's best gesture to defuse the situation might be to send an apology and also an invitation to meet to discuss immigrant welfare.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Yup, I said in my immediate follow-up post that it was the person who escorted him's fault.
By the time the appropriate person who would have explained to him what had happened arrived, he had left. All in the space of a few minutes.
In response to reports of the incident, George Wesolek, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco immediately said: ""We had no intention of excluding him at all. If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize." Andrus responded with a blog post.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He says he arrived five minutes before he was told to arrive. So, that adds the question of whether he was told the right time, and by whom.
Although the question of when he arrived vs. when he was told to arrive isn't all there is to it... According to his account (here), he was actively prevented from being escorted upstairs with the Greek Orthodox delegation, who were present in the same room as him.
Yeah, really. I was just addressing that particular excuse that was used. There is all kinds of shady going on in that story.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
In response to reports of the incident, George Wesolek, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco immediately said: ""We had no intention of excluding him at all. If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize." Andrus responded with a blog post.
Good start. here's part of what Bishop Andrus said in reply:
quote:
I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.
At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, "I think I understand, and feel I should leave." Her response was, "Thank you for being understanding." I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me
This is the part of his story that bugs me the most. He said " I think I should leave" and the reply was "Thank you for being understanding?"
The best interpretation of that is she didn't hear him right.
[ 08. October 2012, 03:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I have been enthralled by this brouhaha the past few days so I have read a lot of reports and articles about it all. In the comboxes the crux of so many comments seem to be "he's lying.... no HE's lying .... oh, no he isn't, HE is lying". As it happens I think it's all just a cock-up and no-one is actually lying.
As a public servant, I've found a very good rule of thumb is: if you have to choose between a conspiracy and a cock-up, it's almost certain that it's a cock-up.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The best interpretation of that is she didn't hear him right.
'best' or 'most generous'? That point also struck me as odd if it were all a mishap though cascading mishaps happen. Given that it is obvious that Andrus thinks he was snubbed (with justification), it behooves the archbishop to make some substantive gesture to show it was unintentional. He might not like Andrus's views of his actions and views, but, if he is going to work with most major figure in San Francisco, Marin or San Mateo he is going to have to work with people (left or right) with similar views in regards to gays and who frankly fear what he might do. He might as well start with Andrus.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Sorry, "Most generous" is indeed what I meant.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I can WELL understand the employee being a bit mystified by the "I feel I should leave" bit, and not knowing how to respond to it.
And exactly whose job does he think it was to stop him from leaving??
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I hope Triple Tiara's reading is the right one. That could be patched up ASAP.
I too found it unfortunate that DioCal's news website had a blurb about it right away. I don't know precisely how that site works, so I wouldn't say that Bishop Marc rushed to post about it on a blog. It could be that he mentioned it to a staff member (and notifying anyone who was there to cover the event for DioCal's news would only be fair; they might still want to cover the service, but shouldn't be left hunting for their bishop if he's not there) and that staff member rushed it to the internet. I wouldn't rush to blame Bishop Marc for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If Bishop Marc came out and said that +Cordelione was a bigoted, homophobic etc, then the Roman Church would have every right to not invite him and to view him as an obstacle to ecumenism.
However, simply stating that the Episcopal Church disagrees with the Roman Church on a justice issue and that it believes it is the right one, is not actually insulting the Roman Church.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Why does it seem to be the knee-jerk reaction these days to take offense at someone's holding a view different to your own - and having the audacity to think their view isn't wrong!?
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Not inviting someone to an event because they oppose your ethical values or because you disapprove of their ethical values is fair enough. Inviting them, then delaying them in the basement so that they miss the event seems a little on the childish side.
To be fair, the invitation has to have gone out well before Bishop Marc's Oct. 1 letter - and the letter may have been the reason for the snub. Perhaps a phone call to (politely?) disinvite him would've been better - this way wasted a lot of his time, something bishops don't have an endless supply of.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can WELL understand the employee being a bit mystified by the "I feel I should leave" bit, and not knowing how to respond to it.
And exactly whose job does he think it was to stop him from leaving??
That may be, but a simple "I'm sorry?" or "Pardon?" would have been much better than "Thank you for being understanding." Seriously - if someone said something mystifying to you in any situation, would that be your response?
And a polite host does try to dissuade you from leaving in a situation like that. They don't throw themselves in front of the door and stop you, but just letting you go with no protest generally would be taken by anyone to be a dismissive response.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Does anyone realize just how difficult it is to marshall the start of a liturgy like this? A liturgy on this scale, with this many moving parts, happens infrequently enough for it to be almost a one-off affair.
It may be that the master of ceremonies is perpetually punished by having to run these shows decade in and decade out, but you can best be sure that his assistants and ushers and doorkeepers, and whatnot, are mostly new to the show.
There are approximately eleventy-dozen different kinds of Very Important People, each of whom must enter their procession at the right time, in the right order. And, when he or she arrives at their place, they had better have a place to sit.
Let's pass by the government officials, and the representatives of the various charities and non-profits with which the Church has to do. Let us also pass by the various honored guests of our own Church (sisters and brothers and the KoC and OD) to deal only with bishops in their variety of hats.
There are 'our' bishops and there are 'their' bishops. There are various kinds of 'our' bishops, who need to be treated differently, and God save the poor seminarian-usher who misplaces one of 'our' bishops.
Then, there are 'their' bishops enough like 'our' bishops so that we treat them pretty much like our 'bishops', but not quite like 'our' bishops. And, of course, these come in various flavors and grades. Please be sure to respect their relative ranking.
[Confused yet? Well let's not forget that many bishops are old and infirm and by charity should be herded each by his own chaplain. Then there is the fact that many bishops could barely find it with both hands and a flashlight in their salad days, let alone now, in their dottage.]
Then there are 'their' bishops who look like 'their' bishops, but who, in fact, are 'our' bishops, who get treated like 'our' bishops'.
And, of course, in to this episcopal maelstrom of 'our' bishops and 'their' bishops and 'our' bishops who look like 'their' bishops, comes this character, Marc Handley Andrus, who perhaps was wearing a rig much like one of 'our' bishops, but doesn't quite fit the neat classification of 'ours'/'theirs'/'ours'-looking-like-'theirs', so some unfortunate flunky directs the hapless Andrus to where 'their' bishops are milling about, when he should have been directed to where the Protestants are assembling (God only knows how they are dressed).
And, the request goes up chain of command to figure out where this bishop, not 'ours' nor 'theirs', belongs. But the 'chain' isn't fully linked up and the idea of 'command' is just a fond hope at a few minutes shy of the witching hour.
So, the person sent to get the answer has to rush through the cathedral complex (a large place), obtain the answer, and then bustle back to escort this ersatz 'bishop' to his proper place (at a time that won't embarrass all and sundry) with the rest of the Protestant Observers. When the harried functionary returns with the answer, the ersatz 'bishop' has discretely retired from the scene.
If Andrus had been equipped with just a touch more grace, he would have waited until his harried hosts could accommodate him. Being an eminent episkopos (ersatz or otherwise) does not relieve one of heeding the lesson of Lk 14:10.
If true, the prime idiocy is that the archdiocese instructed Andrus to be there by 1:45 p.m. for a two p.m. pontifical liturgy. One o'clock would have been closer to the mark.
[ 08. October 2012, 05:56: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That may be, but a simple "I'm sorry?" or "Pardon?" would have been much better than "Thank you for being understanding." Seriously - if someone said something mystifying to you in any situation, would that be your response?
Yeah, my comment was meant to suggest she didn't hear or parse that comment at all. That the "Thank you for understanding" may have been a simple acknowledgement of the cockeduppityness of the situation. (Thus, "Thank you for patiently tolerating our clusterfuck.")
Wouldn't it be refreshing and healing if somebody, somewhere said exactly that?
(Question: What were the Orthodoxen doing in the basement? Just curious. )
[ 08. October 2012, 06:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
If true, the prime idiocy is that the archdiocese instructed Andrus to be there by 1:45 p.m. for a two p.m. pontifical liturgy. One o'clock would have been closer to the mark.
This has the golden chime of truth.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Given that it is obvious that Andrus thinks he was snubbed (with justification), it behooves the archbishop to make some substantive gesture to show it was unintentional.
Sure, I would suggest the series of gestures here, from 1:11 to the end.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There are approximately eleventy-dozen different kinds of Very Important People, each of whom must enter their procession at the right time, in the right order. And, when he or she arrives at their place, they had better have a place to sit.
The first shall be last, eh?
When did the Church of our Lord Jesus come to this?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Yeah, they should've said to be there by 1pm. 1:30 at the latest. While it's hard to tell VIPs to show up early and wait around, that wouldn't be the case here - there would be lots of VIPs who would be very interested in seeing and speaking with each other. Gathering them in a comfortable place, perhaps with light refreshments (or at least water available) would've been really nice, a chance to network and deepen ecumenical relationships.
Maybe they really aren't that used to doing major events?
In my years at Grace Cathedral, we've done quite a few huge events, ecumenical or otherwise, and I don't recall any major incidents. Bishop Marc's installation included (IIRC) four processions coming from different directions, even - and a video feed for a spill-over crowd downstairs (Bishop Marc and Presiding Bishop KJS distributed Communion down there). We do get practice every year at our Remembrance Day service, where we have not only ecumenical guests, but also dignitaries (such as a representative of the Queen and various Ambassadors). It is hard work, but you plan it very carefully, have lots of proofreaders, rehearse with staff and volunteers, and use your staff and most trusted, experienced volunteers (i.e., not just well-meaning people who want to be involved).
At any rate, the fact that this incident happened on St. Francis' Day makes me hope that "where there is injury, [we can sow] pardon." It disturbs me that people are lining up along denominational sides and sniping at each other.
As for stealing sheep, I'm sure I'm a bit unusual, but I think it's good when people leave a church if another church is there to welcome them. It's better than their giving up on faith entirely. Maybe it's because I'm Episcopalian I can say that (not believing that leaving my church is leaving the One True Faith). But I wasn't offended by the Ordinariate set up by Benedict - I thought it a good option for some people who were unhappy in the Anglican churches. It helped prevent them from splintering the Church even further by forming yet another church. Of course, I've read Catholic commenters on some blogs who say outright that my church's Sacraments have no grace, or that we're heretics, or that we're a false church, we're not real Christians, etc., etc., etc. So I can imagine that such Catholics wouldn't be pleased to know we're there to welcome their disaffected (and disenfranchised). They might even prefer such people stop going to any church at all, thinking the Episcopal Church merely deceives its members into thinking they're OK spiritually, which is worse than knowing you're not Christian. But no Catholics I know personally think like that. In fact, I'm welcomed to receive Communion in some Catholic Masses around here. As usual, I think the people and the priests know better than the hierarchies how to handle ecumenical relations.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
At any rate, the fact that this incident happened on St. Francis' Day makes me hope that "where there is injury, [we can sow] pardon." It disturbs me that people are lining up along denominational sides and sniping at each other.
You know what? This is the bottom line and you are absolutely right. I will join in your prayer.
quote:
As usual, I think the people and the priests know better than the hierarchies how to handle ecumenical relations.
I shared off board that I have become "Catholic Curious*" recently, mostly because of amazing folk I have met at school, and it's just what you said that attracts me-- it's not the hierarchy or the structure that appeals to me, its the amazing, often unsung magnificence I see in the Body of Christ.
*Calm down, IngoB ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on
:
Having been "behind the scenes" in various litigical big services (albeit not as big as this one and not in the US)this sound like just a cock-up.
From the outside, it may look as if eveyone knows what they are doing in these sorts of services, but more often than not there is perhaps only one person who know exactly what is meant to be hapening and where everyone is meant to be at any one time. Everyone else hopefully knows what they are supposed to be doing (and maybe not even that) and generally just go with the flow as it were and uually things work out ok!
Add in the unpredicatble effects of protestors outside, and it's very easy for things to go horribly wrong. The idea that is was an intentional snub seems highly unlikely.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There are approximately eleventy-dozen different kinds of Very Important People, each of whom must enter their procession at the right time, in the right order. And, when he or she arrives at their place, they had better have a place to sit.
The first shall be last, eh?
When did the Church of our Lord Jesus come to this?
Quite. If people stopped poncing about in their vestments, having processions and seating arrangements organised along the lines of who is most important, this sort of thing would not happen and maybe the world would see a church that looked like Christ's disciples. Why not just seat on a first come first served basis, with ushers taking people to the next available seat starting from the front?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Exactly - in a Christian service, why are there any VIPs?
Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on
:
quote:Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There are approximately eleventy-dozen different kinds of Very Important People, each of whom must enter their procession at the right time, in the right order. And, when he or she arrives at their place, they had better have a place to sit. The first shall be last, eh? When did the Church of our Lord Jesus come to this? [Disappointed] Quite. If people stopped poncing about in their vestments, having processions and seating arrangements organised along the lines of who is most important, this sort of thing would not happen and maybe the world would see a church that looked like Christ's disciples. Why not just seat on a first come first served basis, with ushers taking people to the next available seat starting from the front?
Abso-bloody-lutely. We've got our instructions - Luke Ch.22 V.26 among others. Although I do like the look of vestments. And the sight of an archbishop in full get-up sitting at the side among the giggling teenagers would be one to treasure.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, the person sent to get the answer has to rush through the cathedral complex (a large place), obtain the answer, and then bustle back.
Isn't that why God created cell phones?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
From the outside, it may look as if eveyone knows what they are doing in these sorts of services, but more often than not there is perhaps only one person who know exactly what is meant to be hapening and where everyone is meant to be at any one time. Everyone else hopefully knows what they are supposed to be doing (and maybe not even that) and generally just go with the flow as it were and uually things work out ok!
A friend of a friend is reported to have taken a wrong turning during one of these vast hyper-liturgical services and found herself face to face with Rowan Williams. The good Archbishop apparently said: 'Don't worry. If you bow to me and I bow to you, and we go our separate ways, everyone will assume it was part of the plan.'
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can WELL understand the employee being a bit mystified by the "I feel I should leave" bit, and not knowing how to respond to it.
And exactly whose job does he think it was to stop him from leaving??
That may be, but a simple "I'm sorry?" or "Pardon?" would have been much better than "Thank you for being understanding." Seriously - if someone said something mystifying to you in any situation, would that be your response?
And a polite host does try to dissuade you from leaving in a situation like that. They don't throw themselves in front of the door and stop you, but just letting you go with no protest generally would be taken by anyone to be a dismissive response.
He said "I understand". The employee said "thank you for understanding".
Focusing on the SECOND half of what he said while ignoring the FIRST half is probably the exact opposite of what actually happened.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My experience of VIPs: the best ones are the ones that don't act like they are.
I used to work for an entire council of VIPs, and the ones I remember fondly and would make extra effort for were the ones who spoke to 'underlings' in exactly the same way that they spoke to each other.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Question: What were the Orthodoxen doing in the basement? Just curious. )
Perhaps you are skipping my posts Kelly, but I indicated above the answer to that: EVERYONE was vesting in the "basement". I don't know the place at all, but the Event Center is located beneath the Cathedral.Hereis the website. Different groups of people were marshalled in different areas.
I picked that information up from reading various articles, but apparently it's not getting out there through the shrill outrage (from all sides - I dislike the appalling comments by the Captain Catholic types more than all others!)
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I have this wonderful vision of a gaggle (conclave? pride? what is the correct collective noun?) of Orthodoxen and sundry other bishops in glorious regalia wandering around this large basement with looks of confusion. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
A confusion of bishops.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Apparently either a bench or a psalter of bishops.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My experience of VIPs: the best ones are the ones that don't act like they are.
I used to work for an entire council of VIPs, and the ones I remember fondly and would make extra effort for were the ones who spoke to 'underlings' in exactly the same way that they spoke to each other.
I have worked in similar situations in the past (see state funeral MW reports) and can assure you that this is my experience-- I remember fondly Wally MacLean, Bill Davis and Bob Rae for exactly the reasons orfeo describes. Others suggesting that orders of precedence are unChristian may well be right in theory as are those who ignore financial reports on the basis of not wishing to store up treasure on earth, but we are then able to avoid seating by bullying and mob rule and I assure that this is a real challenge. (The MW editor wisely cut from the Trudeau report a potentially actionable dialogue between myself and one of Stockwell Day's staff on the question of precedence as his boss was in a snit over having to sit below the salt of a former political opponent).
This case sounds a bit like minionitis meeking chip-on-the-shoulder prelate, but think it possible that one or the other (if not both) of the two sources might not be entirely truthful in their accounts.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Firstly, what an astonishing letter to the diocese to mark the arrival of a new RC bishop. What exactly was the point of it? It reads simply as "there are people who don't like him and let me re-assure you I don't either". Or is there some hidden point I'm not getting?
I think part of the confusion is that various media outlets have described it (ironically?) as a "welcome" letter. It seems pretty clear to me that this letter was not for the benefit of Don Cordileone, but for the people of the Episcopal Diocese. Bp. Andrus was saying, "Look, I know all of you find this guy morally repugnant, and I do too (with the exception of one or two issues). But I've been invited to the installation and I think it is important for me to go. So don't give me too much grief about it."
I actually find the letter a bit weasely, not because it is unwelcoming to Bp. Cordileone, but because Bp. Andrus should have had the courage of his convictions from the outset and declined the invitation, rather than saying he would go but would be sure to wear his frowny face.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
As for stealing sheep, I'm sure I'm a bit unusual, but I think it's good when people leave a church if another church is there to welcome them. It's better than their giving up on faith entirely.
Way to miss the point... Does the Episcopal Church normally show the door to disgruntled RCs that drop in on their regular services? Of course not, quite to the contrary I would imagine. I bet ex-RCs make up a significant part (the majority?) of Episcopalian converts... So why does +Andrus feel the need to instruct his flock to be welcoming to RCs, if they are used to welcoming RCs anyhow? Because in the context of this letter it's clearly a heavy-handed hint that the installation of an unpopular RC archbishop presents a golden opportunity for them to strengthen their numbers.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
A confusion of bishops.
Love it! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
I totally buy the cock-up explanation- it would be insane to purposely add a public snubbing to the nightmare that a major event already is- but did none of the flunkies think to explain to Andrus that there had been some kind of mistake and they weren't sure what was going on?
He claims that nobody tried to explain to him what was happening. Looking at the situation from a customer-service perspective- if there's one thing people resent it's being left in the dark with no information or apologies when a company (supervisor, archbishop, whatever) has screwed up. Speaking as a flunky myself, if I were the basement flunky-in-chief I think my line would have been "I am really, really sorry, Bishop, but there's obviously been a mistake somewhere. You aren't on my seating list because I only have the Orthodox and Catholic guests. You know it's a madhouse upstairs right now, so it may take us a few minutes to sort this out. I'll let you know just as soon as I know something. I am really, really sorry for the confusion."
Seems like either the flunky was too panicked (understandable, if I had a bishop getting in my face I would be too) or there was too much chaos for them to sort things out in a timely way. But if Andrus is telling the truth it's really unfortunate that no one took time to explain the situation to him.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
Who's going to run him out of town? It's the Pope's prerogative to appoint RC bishops; the laity in the diocese doesn't get a vote. If he really screws the pooch, he might be recalled, but it would take more than a single DUI to justify that.
And +Cordileone has been in a city by the Bay for three or so years already; prior to his appointment to the Archdiocese of SF, he was Bishop of Oakland.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I don't see in Bishop Andrus' account of what happened any indication that he tried to figure out what was going on. Instead of just assuming he was being snubbed, excluded on purpose, he could have inquired neutrally about whether he was in the right place. Maybe he thought he was being kind to the flunky by not making said flunky confirm his suspicions, but if he hadn't had the suspicions in the first place, things might have worked out very differently.
Or as the Ship's fifth commandment puts it, "Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended."
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Exactly, Ruth. Someone made a dumb mistake at Our Lady of Maytag, +Andrus responded in a rather drama-queeny fashion, and now partisans on both sides are amplifying the drama queenery, with predictably unedifying results.
It's all kind of stupid, really.
I think it's to +Cordileone's credit that he hasn't made a public response; I hope that he will have the sense to apologize by private phone call or letter.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
San Francisco is fairly secular I imagine. Bishop Andrus may suggest that liberal-minded Catholics may be drawn to his church, but on the other hand, they might stop going to church altogether. Anglicans can't just count on disaffected RCs to prevent church decline.
But then I don't know the churchmanship of the Episcopal Church of SF. Is it fairly high church in that a comfortable RC can easily blend into an Episcopal service?
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
San Francisco is fairly secular I imagine. Bishop Andrus may suggest that liberal-minded Catholics may be drawn to his church, but on the other hand, they might stop going to church altogether. Anglicans can't just count on disaffected RCs to prevent church decline.
But then I don't know the churchmanship of the Episcopal Church of SF. Is it fairly high church in that a comfortable RC can easily blend into an Episcopal service?
There would be great similarities in what transpires in the average RC and TEC parish on an ordinary Sunday in California in my experience.
The whole brouhaha is a sad business and shows how tenuous ecumenical relations have become over time. We would do well as Christians to be more honestly welcoming of one another, accepting our differences, but rejoicing in what we hold in common.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Question: What were the Orthodoxen doing in the basement? Just curious. )
Perhaps you are skipping my posts Kelly, but I indicated above the answer to that: EVERYONE was vesting in the "basement".
Yeah, you got me, I'm deliberately skipping your posts.
Dude, don't take it so personally; there's a lot of stuff to process and I'm trying to keep up. How often do you see me in Purg, anyway?
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, the person sent to get the answer has to rush through the cathedral complex (a large place), obtain the answer, and then bustle back.
Isn't that why God created cell phones?
We use 2-way radios.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Given that it is obvious that Andrus thinks he was snubbed (with justification), it behooves the archbishop to make some substantive gesture to show it was unintentional.
Sure, I would suggest the series of gestures here, from 1:11 to the end.
Yes, those gestures would indeed be appropriate, considering the current attitude of the Roman Communion's leadership toward the wider Christian family.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Exactly, Ruth. Someone made a dumb mistake at Our Lady of Maytag, +Andrus responded in a rather drama-queeny fashion, and now partisans on both sides are amplifying the drama queenery, with predictably unedifying results.
So I'm gonna publicly suggest that they just get together for coffee or beers and publicly laugh at this whole mess, because I'm coming around to the POV that that's exactly what it is.
**God forbid!** any one with a robe on act like a stupid carbon based life form. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Add in the unpredicatble effects of protestors outside, and it's very easy for things to go horribly wrong. The idea that is was an intentional snub seems highly unlikely.
"Baffled even staff" sounds more plausible at this point.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I should add for the benefit of those who don't know Bishop Marc that he is exactly the sort of bishop who is approachable and respectful of everyone. He's got a very gentle manner, too. He wouldn't have been "getting in the face" of the person working the downstairs room.
I should also disclose that he's not my bishop. I'm not a member of the Diocese of California, I just work there.
And IngoB, you miss my point. Stating that we welcome anyone who might be leaving the Roman church isn't the same as trying to lure people away from it. But it's good that you'd rather keep these folks in your fold. I've read some comments on the Catholic blogs where people are saying, "Good, let 'em leave, then we'll have only the real Christians left in our church." Stuff to that effect. It's commendable that you're jealous of each Catholic soul and not wishing them out the door like that.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Exactly, Ruth. Someone made a dumb mistake at Our Lady of Maytag, +Andrus responded in a rather drama-queeny fashion, and now partisans on both sides are amplifying the drama queenery, with predictably unedifying results.
So I'm gonna publicly suggest that they just get together for coffee or beers and publicly laugh at this whole mess, because I'm coming around to the POV that that's exactly what it is.
**God forbid!** any one with a robe on act like a stupid carbon based life form.
Good suggestion. Maybe there needs to be a third party - an Orthodox bishop? - like Pres. Obama did with Henry Louis Gates and that cop who arrested him for trying to enter his own house.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
EVENT. Sorry.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Exactly, Ruth. Someone made a dumb mistake at Our Lady of Maytag, +Andrus responded in a rather drama-queeny fashion, and now partisans on both sides are amplifying the drama queenery, with predictably unedifying results.
So I'm gonna publicly suggest that they just get together for coffee or beers and publicly laugh at this whole mess, because I'm coming around to the POV that that's exactly what it is.
**God forbid!** any one with a robe on act like a stupid carbon based life form.
Good suggestion. Maybe there needs to be a third party - an Orthodox bishop? - like Pres. Obama did with Henry Louis Gates and that cop who arrested him for trying to enter his own house.
Send me in, Simon.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
An official snub from the Archbishop seems unlikely, but a lay Roman Catholic who has a problem with episcopalians (and there are a few around) spotting an opportunity and taking the opportunity to get a dig in by "misplacing" the Bishop? I don't see that as being implausible. Cock-up seems just as likely, but there is some serious hostility from certain Roman Catholics when episcopalians offer a haven from those aspects of Roman teaching they consider wrong.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Last January at a Week of Christian Unity service, the Roman Catholic priest who preached at an ecumenical service I attended basically blamed Anglicans for squandering any hope of genuine Christian unity with the ordination of women bishops in England and the blessing of same-sex relationships in the US. I was struck by the fact that there were other Protestant denominations who were fairly liberal on these matters, but the priest chose instead to single out Anglicanism for mention.
Anglicans rub some conservative Roman Catholics in a particular way. RCs in my experience, don't complain about denominations such as the United Church of Christ/Canada who make similar liberal moves. I think it is that of all the Protestant churches, Anglicanism is the most catholic in its ecclesiology and liturgy. Other liberal Protestants in some ways, get less attention because they are well, Protestant, and not claiming things like apostolic succession and catholicity.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
Separating the Orthodox dignitaries from the other ones is a bit tricky. It's tough for Western non-RCs to understand why Orthodox (who likewise are not in full communion with Rome and adamantly do not recognize the orders of the Bishop of Rome or his bishops and priests, nor all of Catholic doctrine) are treated specially while the same concession cannot be afforded to those who have split from Rome even more recently.
It's best in situations like this to keep all non-RC visiting clergy together. If a sage Master of Ceremonies really wanted to acknowledge a certain primacy of Orthodox dignitaries, he would simply place them at the end of the ecumenical dignitary procession.
That said, the graceful thing to do in a mistake like this is for all sides to just ignore it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
And IngoB, you miss my point. Stating that we welcome anyone who might be leaving the Roman church isn't the same as trying to lure people away from it.
And you should read for comprehension. Actually, come to think of it, don't. Because if you don't get what I'm saying, then you are not reading between the lines of +Andrus' letter either. And that's just fine with me.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
But it's good that you'd rather keep these folks in your fold. I've read some comments on the Catholic blogs where people are saying, "Good, let 'em leave, then we'll have only the real Christians left in our church." Stuff to that effect. It's commendable that you're jealous of each Catholic soul and not wishing them out the door like that.
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) Unlike cradle Episcopalians, most ex-RCs will have considerable difficulty pleading inculpable ignorance on this point. Furthermore, once an ex-RC joins the Episcopalian Church, they are likely to be confirmed and hardened in their heresies and sins. And again they are unlikely to escape all blame for that, due to having been taught better by the RCC, thus further increasing the likelihood of their eternal damnation. No matter how disagreeable I may find other RCs, I cannot wish this kind of future for them.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Send me in, Simon.
"Breaking news: Axe-wielding bunny cuts through ecumenical tangle like Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot. Soon after, she disappears. Unconfirmed reports place her on a jet ski, heading for a mysterious sailing ship."
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) Unlike cradle Episcopalians, most ex-RCs will have considerable difficulty pleading inculpable ignorance on this point. Furthermore, once an ex-RC joins the Episcopalian Church, they are likely to be confirmed and hardened in their heresies and sins. And again they are unlikely to escape all blame for that, due to having been taught better by the RCC, thus further increasing the likelihood of their eternal damnation. No matter how disagreeable I may find other RCs, I cannot wish this kind of future for them.
IngoB, what a magnificent logical and emotional trap for disaffected Catholics, who now must surely revert to being mute and obedient sheep. A glittering career in 1930s style Parish Missions, scaring the hell out of the sheep, surely beckons.
[ 08. October 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
IME, God really really loves it when we make statements suggesting some people "can't be saved." LOVES it. In a bring-it-on sort of way. It's like saying, "Betcha can't drink that 2-liter soda all in one gulp."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes, which is why I am regularly tempted to say that sort of thing to Him. Trying to manipulate God, oh yes.
[ 08. October 2012, 21:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Separating the Orthodox dignitaries from the other ones is a bit tricky. It's tough for Western non-RCs to understand why Orthodox (who likewise are not in full communion with Rome and adamantly do not recognize the orders of the Bishop of Rome or his bishops and priests, nor all of Catholic doctrine) are treated specially while the same concession cannot be afforded to those who have split from Rome even more recently.
It's best in situations like this to keep all non-RC visiting clergy together. If a sage Master of Ceremonies really wanted to acknowledge a certain primacy of Orthodox dignitaries, he would simply place them at the end of the ecumenical dignitary procession.
That said, the graceful thing to do in a mistake like this is for all sides to just ignore it.
Bluntly, that is not true. It's not as simple as that and never has been. The issue of not recognising Latin Orders by some (and I stress some) Orthodox has only been around since 1724 and was the result of the fallout from the split in the Patriarchate of Antioch between what is now the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. It was a matter of spite in the bitterness that followed, not theology or ecclesiology.
Orthodox practice today is totally inconsistent; Jerusalem and ROCOR will require a converting Catholic cleric to be rebaptised and reordained, Cyprus on the other hand will simply chrismate and vest. ROCOR in particular are in a truly odd situation since their practice completely contradicts the Sobor of Moscow 1666-1667 which upheld the validity of Latin Holy Orders, as does Moscow today whom they once again are united with. I'd be very interested to know what their current practice is.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Bluntly, that is not true. It's not as simple as that and never has been. The issue of not recognising Latin Orders by some (and I stress some) Orthodox has only been around since 1724 and was the result of the fallout from the split in the Patriarchate of Antioch between what is now the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. It was a matter of spite in the bitterness that followed, not theology or ecclesiology.
I think you'll find the percentage of Anglicans who recognize Latin Orders is far higher than that of Orthodox. Why afford more dignity to the Orthodox?
[That said, I still think +Andrus handled it incorrectly.]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
The Silent Acolyte said this:
There are approximately eleventy-dozen different kinds of Very Important People, each of whom must enter their procession at the right time, in the right order. And, when he or she arrives at their place, they had better have a place to sit.
To which... quote:
...the disappointed Boogie sed:
The first shall be last, eh?
When did the Church of our Lord Jesus come to this?
..eand... quote:
...and the tongue-clucking anglefish sed:
If people stopped poncing about in their vestments, having processions and seating arrangements organised along the lines of who is most important, this sort of thing would not happen and maybe the world would see a church that looked like Christ's disciples. Why not just seat on a first come first served basis, with ushers taking people to the next available seat starting from the front?
You both are so right.
This is why at all our family's holiday celebratory meals (Thanksgiving, Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries, and the like) we return honor and thanks to Jesus Christ for our elders by according them no special consideration due their wisdom, experience, office, or number of years.
Our granny and her octogenarian brothers and sisters stand in line at the sideboard like every one else waiting to put food on their plates. They wouldn't want any special recognition.
Of course, the young'uns usually mob the front of the line grabbing all the tastiest cuts and then rush to get the best seats at the tables. Shucks, they're just kids.
When granny and her sibs gets to the food they select what they wants from what's been picked over (they doesn't really eat much anyway) and then go to the folding chairs to balance their plates on their knees.
She's completely down with those tender lines from Jesus that we should suffer the little children and unless you receive the kingdom of God as a child.
And, the ponces? We make them sit outside on the porch.
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Having been "behind the scenes" in various litigical big services (albeit not as big as this one and not in the US)this sound like just a cock-up.
From the outside, it may look as if eveyone knows what they are doing in these sorts of services, but more often than not there is perhaps only one person who know exactly what is meant to be hapening and where everyone is meant to be at any one time. Everyone else hopefully knows what they are supposed to be doing (and maybe not even that) and generally just go with the flow as it were and uually things work out ok!
Add in the unpredicatble effects of protestors outside, and it's very easy for things to go horribly wrong. The idea that is was an intentional snub seems highly unlikely.
Absolutely. At my own church, we have an annual special service of vespers that involves 15 or so seminarians, 20 priests (including a few monsignors) local clergy of different denominations,and three or four bishops. Some get vested in the basement chapel, some get vested in the school, some are in the rectory chapel.
Hectic is an understatement. People are late, people bring the wrong vestments and replacements have to be found, and because there's only one procession, we only get one chance to get everyone in their proper seats. We're going into our eighth year of it, and mistakes still abound. This year, we ended up with the pastor of the local presbyterian church seated in the midst of some of the Catholic bishops and a bishop seated in his place. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
This year, we ended up with the pastor of the local presbyterian church seated in the midst of some of the Catholic bishops and a bishop seated in his place.
Sounds like the sort of thing which should happen more often
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Marshalling even twenty priests can be a vexatious chore. At a previous rector institution they were assembled, appropriately, enough, downstairs in the nursery. The MC merely dispatched a spare deacon—certainly not the deacon of the mass; couldn't chance misplacing him—to get those chuckleheads lined up by increasing seniority of ordination. Afterward the unlucky deacon wouldn't speak to the MC for weeks.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This is why at all our family's holiday celebratory meals (Thanksgiving, Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries, and the like) we return honor and thanks to Jesus Christ for our elders by according them no special consideration due their wisdom, experience, office, or number of years.
I might expect decorum at the table and for granny to be served first, but I don't expect granny and grandad to have detailed rules about which of them gets served first and to get huffy if things aren't done right.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Next time, the invitation should just say "Dress: smart casual".
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And by 'entire staff', I am including the Archbishop because what I've been hearing come out of his fool mouth needs a lot more soft spin if he wants to stay in the City by the Bay.
Who's going to run him out of town? It's the Pope's prerogative to appoint RC bishops; the laity in the diocese doesn't get a vote.
They do have this habit of voting with their checkbooks and their feet.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And +Cordileone has been in a city by the Bay for three or so years already; prior to his appointment to the Archdiocese of SF, he was Bishop of Oakland.
Then he should have damn well known better, and if you don't already know, I'm pretty sure everyone can extrapolate what I think of the gentleman currently sitting in the Chair of Peter.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) Unlike cradle Episcopalians, most ex-RCs will have considerable difficulty pleading inculpable ignorance on this point. Furthermore, once an ex-RC joins the Episcopalian Church, they are likely to be confirmed and hardened in their heresies and sins. And again they are unlikely to escape all blame for that, due to having been taught better by the RCC, thus further increasing the likelihood of their eternal damnation. No matter how disagreeable I may find other RCs, I cannot wish this kind of future for them.
Two points:
1) The notion that any action can make a person irredeemably seems, at least to me, to contradict one of the central tenets of theistic belief, viz., that God is omnipotent. Compare the statement that person X "could not be saved" with the statement "See, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27)
2) In any case, it's a good thing for all the former RCs in The Episcopal Church that there's no such body as "the Episcopalian Church." Undoubtedly they'd be quaking in their boots otherwise.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And +Cordileone has been in a city by the Bay for three or so years already; prior to his appointment to the Archdiocese of SF, he was Bishop of Oakland.
Yes, but as you probably know (since you live there! ), Oakland has different needs, problems, and contexts from SF.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Next time, the invitation should just say "Dress: smart casual".
You must be familiar with the Cathedral in Sydney.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Next time, the invitation should just say "Dress: smart casual".
You must be familiar with the Cathedral in Sydney.
After reading the Sydney Anglican thread, I wouldn't dare visit!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
IngoB, what a magnificent logical and emotional trap for disaffected Catholics, who now must surely revert to being mute and obedient sheep. A glittering career in 1930s style Parish Missions, scaring the hell out of the sheep, surely beckons.
Would that it be so, but the loudly bleating sheep running all over the place neither know Lumen Gentium nor care about it (other than via a mysterious Spirit of Vatican II). And I am by far not nice and caring enough a Christian to be a missionary to anyone. The point was why I can't ultimately wish anyone out of the Church. And this point, unlike your whinging, will work against (rad-)trads. Or at least it will stump them until they come up with a long explanation how people leaving the Church helps them get back to the Church...
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
IME, God really really loves it when we make statements suggesting some people "can't be saved." LOVES it. In a bring-it-on sort of way. It's like saying, "Betcha can't drink that 2-liter soda all in one gulp."
This is a statement by a proper Ecumenical Council. Therefore, in essence, God is speaking here through human words. He is bringing it on, this is a challenge for sure. But not to Him, rather from Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, which is why I am regularly tempted to say that sort of thing to Him. Trying to manipulate God, oh yes.
You might as well point to the bible and say that that is trying to manipulate God. That's plain silly. (Well, it's not entirely silly. The bible does contain plenty of material about people trying to manipulate God, and some of it is clearly approved by God. In a like sense, Lumen Gentium is a rather soft interpretation of God's will about Church and salvation. And by virtue of the apostle's power to bind and loosen, this interpretation is in effect.) The fact that you truly don't believe Lumen Gentium could work this way is precisely why the sentence I've quoted doesn't work for you. Lucky you, RCs cannot plead ignorance so easily. Which was my point...
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
1) The notion that any action can make a person irredeemably seems, at least to me, to contradict one of the central tenets of theistic belief, viz., that God is omnipotent.
It merely asserts that a) God can make up his own mind and is true to His word, and b) the Church can and does speak it. There's not the slightest challenge to God's power in sight here.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
2) In any case, it's a good thing for all the former RCs in The Episcopal Church that there's no such body as "the Episcopalian Church." Undoubtedly they'd be quaking in their boots otherwise.
There is however very much such a body as the Church, which you are in the habit of calling the RCC. The problem is not joining the various bodies of the Episcopalian church, the problem is leaving the Church.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
IME, God really really loves it when we make statements suggesting some people "can't be saved." LOVES it. In a bring-it-on sort of way. It's like saying, "Betcha can't drink that 2-liter soda all in one gulp."
This is a statement by a proper Ecumenical Council. Therefore, in essence, God is speaking here through human words. He is bringing it on, this is a challenge for sure. But not to Him, rather from Him.
This is what baffles me: none of the Catholics I know talk like that. In fact, most of the Catholics I have gotten to know-- admittedly at a fairly liberal RC university run by rabble-rousing nuns-- would clap their hands and jump up and down at my little "bring it on" snip. I say that with a fair amount of confidence.
My experiences with them tell me that they might respond to your comment by saying, rather than dwelling on human speculation and rumination on who might be going to hell and who might not, our time is better spent actively looking for ways see the face of Christ in the people He sends us to meet. And trusting that by our doing so, they ARE meeting Him. I hear that sort of thing over and over and over again. This is the witness that intrigues me and makes me want to know more.
And I have to add that it disappoints me that Churchgeek's very gracious and even loving comment to you was met with such terseness. It deserved better. it certainly was the better example of Christlike-ness, IMO.
[ 09. October 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
whinging
Matthew 7:16 refers here, I reckon.
[ 09. October 2012, 08:51: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's vaguely amusing, in a thread about the perils of ecumenicism, to have IngoB talking about people going to hell for not walking the straight and narrow in the Roman Catholic church.
I'm sure that kind of language goes down a TREAT when the folks from various churches get together.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: It's vaguely amusing, in a thread about the perils of ecumenicism, to have IngoB talking about people going to hell for not walking the straight and narrow in the Roman Catholic church.
I'm sure that kind of language goes down a TREAT when the folks from various churches get together.
This reminds me of a post PD made a couple of months ago on an Eccles thread on what a priest should wear to an ecumenical advent:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
1. Street Clericals.
2. Your "Die heretic scum!" tee-shirt.
Just kidding with #2.
PD
It still cracks me up. This post was saved for posterity here.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
[QUOTE]
This is why at all our family's holiday celebratory meals (Thanksgiving, Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries, and the like) we return honor and thanks to Jesus Christ for our elders by according them no special consideration due their wisdom, experience, office, or number of years.
Of course the difference is between demanding or expecting to be treated better than others because you think you are better than them and have a sparklier hat, and treating others better than yourself beause that is what we are commanded by Jesus to do. Not only would it be nice to see church leaders acting with humility, but it would also be nice to see the rest of the church giving their leaders respect where it is due, obviously. Whether you sit at the front, back, side or in an ante room with a video link is immaterial to any of this in my opinion.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, which is why I am regularly tempted to say that sort of thing to Him. Trying to manipulate God, oh yes.
You might as well point to the bible and say that that is trying to manipulate God. That's plain silly. (Well, it's not entirely silly. The bible does contain plenty of material about people trying to manipulate God, and some of it is clearly approved by God. In a like sense, Lumen Gentium is a rather soft interpretation of God's will about Church and salvation. And by virtue of the apostle's power to bind and loosen, this interpretation is in effect.) The fact that you truly don't believe Lumen Gentium could work this way is precisely why the sentence I've quoted doesn't work for you. Lucky you, RCs cannot plead ignorance so easily. Which was my point...
I have no idea what you are on about. The phrase "trying to manipulate God, oh yes" had the implied subject of "I" (referent: Lamb Chopped), carried over from the previous sentence. It was a reference to my own dodgy theological behavior with regard to the Father. I was making no statement about Lumen Gentium or any other piece of RC whatever, as you appear to think.
And as a dyed-in-the-wool sixteenth century Lutheran, do you really think I would? Unless I was trying to pick a fight with you, that is. Keep your Lumen Gentium; I will be happy to stick to the Scriptures and let God deal with me as he chooses. I have no intentions of pleading ignorance before him. He knows me already.
[ 09. October 2012, 11:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is what baffles me: none of the Catholics I know talk like that. In fact, most of the Catholics I have gotten to know-- admittedly at a fairly liberal RC university run by rabble-rousing nuns-- would clap their hands and jump up and down at my little "bring it on" snip. I say that with a fair amount of confidence.
Indeed, at a liberal RC university run by rabble-rousing nuns I would not expect to hear anything remotely like this either. But here's the fun bit. Unlike other denominations, where you ever only get the "fudge", the RC has its official side. And thanks to Vatican II, this official side is now terribly accessible. So, you - you - can go and find out whether what those nuns are telling you is correct. Or whether it is "fudge". And then you can decide what you want. You can choose the "fudge", of course, most people do. But unlike in other denominations, you cannot ever really get rid of the official side in the RCC. Nobody can, not even the RC bishops themselves (and not for the lack of trying). That's the very beauty of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My experiences with them tell me that they might respond to your comment by saying, rather than dwelling on human speculation and rumination on who might be going to hell and who might not, our time is better spent actively looking for ways see the face of Christ in the people He sends us to meet. And trusting that by our doing so, they ARE meeting Him. I hear that sort of thing over and over and over again. This is the witness that intrigues me and makes me want to know more.
I hear that sort of thing over and over again as well. The problem with this is of course not at all the "meeting Christ in people". That's perfectly true, good and scriptural. The problem is to take this as an excuse to not think about the very real possibility of hell, and what the Church has very clearly taught about that. Because we are not just called to "meet Christ in people", we are also called to "meet people in Christ". Or better, the latter is a necessary condition for the former. If you are not aligned with Christ yourself, then ultimately you will not be able to meet Christ in people.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And I have to add that it disappoints me that Churchgeek's very gracious and even loving comment to you was met with such terseness. It deserved better. it certainly was the better example of Christlike-ness, IMO.
For whatever reasons, perhaps indeed grace and love, churchgeek attributed motives to me that are just not mine. I simply truthfully corrected this. Personally, in fact I could do without a lot of RCs. Goodbye, and good riddance, that's what I would love to say. But religion is precisely not about how I feel about people, the Church and the rest. This is about what my Lord commands me to do. And sending people down on their merry path to hell is definitely not what He wants me to do. So even an elitist misanthropist like me gets held in check by the gospel. You could call that a triumph of grace, perhaps? But whatever, you have things to learn from nuns about meeting people in Christ, apparently. And I think I have done my duty as far as that is concerned...
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's vaguely amusing, in a thread about the perils of ecumenicism, to have IngoB talking about people going to hell for not walking the straight and narrow in the Roman Catholic church. I'm sure that kind of language goes down a TREAT when the folks from various churches get together.
This is not a thread about the perils of ecumenicism, this is a thread about some fool Episcopalian bishop making a big issue out of a small mishap at an important Catholic celebration.
And I'm not proposing how any church, including the RCC, should deal with any other church. I'm correcting an overly positive picture that was painted of me caring for my brothers and sisters. And if in the process some of the fudging about RCs leaving for other denominations gets revealed for what it is, then that's a welcome service to the truth. Or at least I welcome it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm correcting an overly positive picture that was painted of me caring for my brothers and sisters.
The idea that there's any kind of limit to you caring for your brothers and sisters speaks volumes.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
IngoB: quote:
...a thread about some fool Episcopalian bishop making a big issue out of a small mishap at an important Catholic celebration.
If keeping a guest hidden in the basement until he comes to the conclusion that he is not welcome and leaves without taking part in the celebration is 'a small mishap', why invite him in the first place?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
sounds to me, on reading TSA's post, that what you all need at these things is a very capable stage manager. consider it. they're useful.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Or a runway coach from America's Next Top Model.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If keeping a guest hidden in the basement until he comes to the conclusion that he is not welcome and leaves without taking part in the celebration is 'a small mishap', why invite him in the first place?
Sadly, that is the image that is going to be uppermost in peoples' minds - and no amount of explaining that the "basement" was a Conference Centre in which everyone who was vesting were "kept" until they were seated is going to undo this image of the bishop being imprisoned against his will in some dungeon. This is where I find Andrus being mischievous and assuming ill intent, despite and after assurances that none such was intended. Your question is indeed apposite: do you really think he was invited in order to be snubbed? Do you really, really think that is what was going on?
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
]Of course the difference is between demanding or expecting to be treated better than others because you think you are better than them and have a sparklier hat, and treating others better than yourself beause that is what we are commanded by Jesus to do. Not only would it be nice to see church leaders acting with humility, but it would also be nice to see the rest of the church giving their leaders respect where it is due, obviously. Whether you sit at the front, back, side or in an ante room with a video link is immaterial to any of this in my opinion.
This is wonderfully simplistic and all those saying similar miss an important point: there is a representative element to such occasions. Special guests are not simply there because they are nice people, but on behalf of their communities. Bishop Andrus was there on behalf of the TEC Diocese of California, as its bishop - not because of any particular personal qualities. Likewise civic dignitaries and other special guests. Whoever was Bishop of California would have been invited so that the TEC was present at the event through them. If they then couldn't find a seat because the place was packed, would that really have been better?
As for Lumen Gentium, fortunately it doesn't say who is going to hell. A Catholic understanding of salvation is very much that it is a process, it's not simply a matter of the final destination. So in saying that people who know the need for the Catholic Church but remain outside it "cannot be saved", the full understanding of what "be saved" means needs to be borne in mind.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I really doubt the archbishop went out of his way to snub the bishop of a small, Protestant sect. Have some perspective here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Lumen Gentium seems to me to be saying very little:
"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
Who, exactly, would actually be in this situation? Anyone who leaves for another church does not believe, does not 'know', that the Catholic Church is the one true OutsideWhichThereIsNoSalvation church. That's why he's leaving it for another.
I know some people think that if you've asserted something, then anyone hearing 'knows' it, but all it actually means is that the hearer knows that you think that it is so.
I know the RCC thinks that "the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ", but I do not know that to be a fact myself; indeed, I think it isn't. Were it so, I'd convert.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
As for Lumen Gentium, fortunately it doesn't say who is going to hell. A Catholic understanding of salvation is very much that it is a process, it's not simply a matter of the final destination. So in saying that people who know the need for the Catholic Church but remain outside it "cannot be saved", the full understanding of what "be saved" means needs to be borne in mind.
What does "know" mean in this context? Know that the Vatican asserts this, or know it to be true? Those two are separated by considerable distance. I really don't consider it likely that anyone would believe that teaching, further believe that the definition of Catholic excludes the Anglican Communion and still choose to be Anglican rather than Roman Catholic. I can conceive, indeed I think it likely, that people can reach a different conclusion to the Vatican on either or both of those teachings might then, for reasons related to other teachings and policies of the Roman church, decide that the Episcopal Church was closer to getting things right.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Snap!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Who, exactly, would actually be in this situation? Anyone who leaves for another church does not believe, does not 'know', that the Catholic Church is the one true OutsideWhichThereIsNoSalvation church. That's why he's leaving it for another.
I know some people think that if you've asserted something, then anyone hearing 'knows' it, but all it actually means is that the hearer knows that you think that it is so.[/QB]
I don't think it's so farfetched that someone who really believes the claims of the Roman Catholic Church could leave. I bet the most common reason is, "Well, it's wrong to leave the Church, but God is merciful, right?" Sin works that way- whathever rationalizations we dream up, deep down inside we know it's wrong.
But let's not go too far about what is being claimrd here. Lumen Gentium, in that passage, is only talking about people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church. It's not talking about us poor Protestants that don't know any better.
[ 09. October 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that there's any kind of limit to you caring for your brothers and sisters speaks volumes.
But, St Hypocrites the Wondertalker, not everybody can reach the heights of your miraculous charity and egregious humility. Only the other day Archangel Gabriel mentioned that he knows only two people who are totally full of something, the BVM and you. So please do not judge us too harshly if we cannot extend infinite care to each other in our comparative emptiness...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Who, exactly, would actually be in this situation? Anyone who leaves for another church does not believe, does not 'know', that the Catholic Church is the one true OutsideWhichThereIsNoSalvation church. That's why he's leaving it for another.
I know some people think that if you've asserted something, then anyone hearing 'knows' it, but all it actually means is that the hearer knows that you think that it is so.
I don't think it's so farfetched that someone who really believes the claims of the Roman Catholic Church could leave. I bet the most common reason is, "Well, it's wrong to leave the Church, but God is merciful, right?" Sin works that way- whathever rationalizations we dream up, deep down inside we know it's wrong.
But let's not go too far about what is being claimrd here. Lumen Gentium, in that passage, is only talking about people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church. It's not talking about us poor Protestants that don't know any better. [/QB]
Yeah, but I'd suggest that it's also not talking about people who leave the RCC having become convinced that its claims of being the One True iPhone are questionable at best. I'd suggest that they outnumber, as you put it, "people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church" and form the vast majority of converts away from the RCC.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Yeah, but I'd suggest that it's also not talking about people who leave the RCC having become convinced that its claims of being the One True iPhone are questionable at best.
Certainly it ain't claiming that ignorant people are necessarily culpably ignorant.
quote:
I'd suggest that they outnumber, as you put it, "people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church" and form the vast majority of converts away from the RCC.
Hopefully. What's your point?
[ 09. October 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hopefully. What's your point?
Presumably that IngoB's concerns are irrelevant because they are unlikely to apply to the vast majority of converts from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Yeah, but I'd suggest that it's also not talking about people who leave the RCC having become convinced that its claims of being the One True iPhone are questionable at best.
Certainly it ain't claiming that ignorant people are necessarily culpably ignorant.
quote:
I'd suggest that they outnumber, as you put it, "people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church" and form the vast majority of converts away from the RCC.
Hopefully. What's your point?
Just that IngoB said "A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell"
Which I think is bollocks, because that assumes that they are "people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church" as you put it. I don't think most of them are, therefore, even taking Lumen at face value, they are not by that act alone dangling over the flames.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Forget the opening post; here resumeth the Catholic-Protestant Slapfest.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Which I think is bollocks, because...
Maybe speculating about these people's damnation is a bit much, but from a Roman Catholic perspective they are, in the very least, abandoning the sacraments and communion with the Church, which is a very grave matter indeed even if they are not culpable for that loss.
quote:
Forget the opening post; here resumeth the Catholic-Protestant Slapfest.
Like I said, it's a bit much to believe that the archbishop would go out of his way to snub the leader of a small, Protestant sect. Suspension of disbelief can only carry one so far before the movie starts to fall apart.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Just that IngoB said "A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell" Which I think is bollocks, because that assumes that they are "people who consciously abandon the grace of God in His Church" as you put it.
By the same argumentation strategy one can deny sin altogether:
- One is not culpable for one's sins if one is not properly conscious of sinning.
- But the wages of sin are such that nobody would choose to sin if properly conscious thereof.
- Therefore people either do not sin, or are inculpable of their sins.
This is, of course, a very common opinion these days, and pops up in many places... What is true is that nobody but God can draw the precise line where ignorance suffices as excuse. What is false is the idea that there either is no such line, or that all ordinary folk must be miles away from it.
The sentence I quoted is the Vatican II rendering of the classical extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). It is part of a very generous interpretation of this time-honoured doctrine. When an envelope has been pushed as much as modern bishops dared to push it, then it is not wise to push it further privately.
So yes, I stand by my comment that leaving the RCC is a serious danger to the salvation of many ordinary RCs. I do not believe that an extraordinary motion of the will against most clearly perceived spiritual truths, an eternal-suicidal hell-wish if you will, is needed to get one into trouble there. God is merciful, but He isn't a sucker. Do not tempt the Lord your God.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Posted by IngoB:
quote:
But religion is precisely not about how I feel about people, the Church and the rest. This is about what my Lord commands me to do.
This is a part which I find bothersome about many Christians.* If you truly vest your beliefs in what the carpenter preached, you should feel for everyone. It should engender passion, not merely legal adherence. The " Fuck people, I believe in Jaysus." implied here is beyond me. But since I (nasty infidel that I am) will likely sitting on the lower benches in hell anyway, what I think is likely not important..
* yeah, other religions aren't off the hook here either. But we are not talking about godless heathens on this thread. ( other than Episcopalians, that is.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
What bothers me is that people imagine charity and feelings change the facts of the matter.
[ 09. October 2012, 16:19: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The " Fuck people, I believe in Jaysus." implied here is beyond me.
In my case it would be more "Fuck people a little less, I believe in Jaysus." The typical Christian striving for imminent sainthood is more convenient for atheist mockery, I can see that. Personally, I find such idealism admirable even in failure, but my own faith simply is more phlegmatic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
IngoB,
I am not mocking anyone, I merely believe the contents of the box should match the label. And trying to balance my views of the words with practical applications. Incidentally, I've never indicated I was an atheist.
Zach82,
Not trying to start a faith v. works tangent here. Just saying if faith does not inspire works, I wonder the reality/depth of said faith. Again, just perusing the instruction manual, not trying to assemble the contents.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Not trying to start a faith v. works tangent here. Just saying if faith does not inspire works, I wonder the reality/depth of said faith. Again, just perusing the instruction manual, not trying to assemble the contents.
Neither am I- I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I am saying that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are either true or false, and how we feel about it or what we feel for each other has nothing to do with that.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
lilBuddha, I think I know what you mean. As Saint Paul said, '.. these three remain, faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is.... church dogma.'
What Christ commanded, so far as I can see, was to love God and one's neighbour as oneself. Or 'to love one another as I have loved you'. Of course, we're going to fail in this, but it does seem pretty clear that if we're interested in sincere religion of any stripe, we ought to have a bloody good go.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Real charity is founded on truth. Charity founded on anything else isn't really charity, it's vanity.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Bluntly, that is not true. It's not as simple as that and never has been. The issue of not recognising Latin Orders by some (and I stress some) Orthodox has only been around since 1724 and was the result of the fallout from the split in the Patriarchate of Antioch between what is now the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. It was a matter of spite in the bitterness that followed, not theology or ecclesiology.
I think you'll find the percentage of Anglicans who recognize Latin Orders is far higher than that of Orthodox. Why afford more dignity to the Orthodox?
[That said, I still think +Andrus handled it incorrectly.]
Because their orders are valid.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Real charity is founded on truth. Charity founded on anything else isn't really charity, it's vanity.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you truly vest your beliefs in what the carpenter preached, you should feel for everyone. It should engender passion, not merely legal adherence.
And what if, fallible frail followers that we are, we find we have no passion and our corrupt hearts lean the wrong way? We either lie about our feelings, give in to our feelings, or force our frail flesh to do what we believe is right even though our hearts aren't in it.
I think there is a potential confusion between what one honestly believes and what one wants to be true. If someone honestly believes I am destined for hell-fire and tries to convert me, or tries to retain me in their church, then that doesn't necessarily make them vindictive. They might be horribly misguided, but they may have the very best of motives.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that there's any kind of limit to you caring for your brothers and sisters speaks volumes.
But, St Hypocrites the Wondertalker,
Jesus God, you two.
Thread imitates life-- is this the kind of diocese cheek-slapping you were trying to describe, churchgeek? If so, the respective Episcopalian/ RC bishop and archbishop with be talking up most of the next couple months banging heads together.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Real charity is founded on truth. Charity founded on anything else isn't really charity, it's vanity.
I think Paul gave a pretty thorough definition of what 'real charity' - as in love - actually is in 1 Corinthians 13. I'm quite sure most of those components aren't inimical to many truths. But, of course, Paul is writing about our relating to others; as in without this quality of love in our relations, the most perfect religion is considered dead.
However, I don't know what you mean by 'truth' in this context, so for all I know you could be simply agreeing with me.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not mocking anyone, I merely believe the contents of the box should match the label.
I promised quite a few things when I was baptised. However, I do not remember that fitting in your box and matching your label was among them.
The consistent impression I get in these discussions is that many people are convinced that there really is only one great commandment, namely love your neighbour, and that the other great commandment about God is fulfilled thereby. But that's not in fact what Christ said.
quote:
Matthew 22:36-40
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
The great and the first commandment is about God, and the one about neighbours comes second. Furthermore, these are not identical, and the second one is like the first, not vice versa. People seem to have great difficulty imaging anything concerning the first commandment that is neither trivial nor vague, but does not have to do with the second commandment. Yet that really is a bit of double dipping... So, what must one do?
quote:
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
Can we think of things that God commands us to do which are not immediately of the "love your neighbour" type? Well, there certainly is plenty of material for a Catholic to work through... Like going to mass every Sunday. Or confessing your sins to a priest. Or fasting for Lent. Or much less exalted and therefore perhaps closer to the bone, abstain from wanking. Or back on topic (well, on tangent), staying in His Church even if you do not feel fed but are fed up with her.
Furthermore, as far as the second commandment is concerned, it seems to me that people really love going on about the corporal works of mercy:
- To feed the hungry.
- To give drink to the thirsty.
- To clothe the naked.
- To visit the imprisoned.
- To shelter the homeless.
- To visit the sick.
- To bury the dead.
But they seem to be a lot less keen on the spiritual works of mercy:
- To admonish the sinner.
- To instruct the ignorant.
- To counsel the doubtful.
- To comfort the sorrowful.
- To bear wrongs patiently.
- To forgive all injuries.
- To pray for the living and the dead.
But perhaps they should not be entirely forgotten, when on passes judgement on other people's charity...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
However, I don't know what you mean by 'truth' in this context, so for all I know you could be simply agreeing with me.
IngoB is arguing that people leaving the Roman Catholic Church are putting their souls in danger, and as usual the chorus replies "what about charity?"
What about it? It so happens I almost agree with IngoB. I just have a wider definition of the Catholic Church than he does. If a person should leave the Christian faith to convert to Judaism or Islam I would believe, similar to IngoB, that they were giving up the Pearl of Great Price and walking away from the grace of God.
That is either true or false. Love must be felt for these souls either way, but that love doesn't change what such people are doing. Love does not (and cannot) demand that we pretend leaving the Christian Faith is all well and good.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
IngoB is arguing that people leaving the Roman Catholic Church are putting their souls in danger, and as usual the chorus replies "what about charity?"
If that's what he believes then charity demands that he do all in his power to persuade them not to leave. And so I appreciate his point that there is a disconnect between the traditionalist taking a "good riddance" attitude and claiming to be a traditionalist.
One might impugn his motives for believing thus - one could perhaps argue that it is arrogance and pride that leads to such a narrow view in the first place (and that had he more charity he might have come to a different conclusion), but that strikes me as a different argument (and by definition more difficult to persuade him of given that he necessarily lacks insight in this scenario) than the more direct argument that charity makes a frontal assault on his beliefs and demands he abandon them.
[ 09. October 2012, 21:06: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I do not remember that fitting in your box and matching your label was among them.
But it is not my box or label.
As to the two greatest commandments; one might have primacy of adherence, but this does not mean it has exclusivity of application.
[ 09. October 2012, 21:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is not my box or label.
Well, I don't know where you stole them from. But certainly not from me.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As to the two greatest commandments; one might have primacy of adherence, but this does not mean it has exclusivity of application.
And, of course, I said nothing that even remotely suggested that.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) Unlike cradle Episcopalians, most ex-RCs will have considerable difficulty pleading inculpable ignorance on this point. Furthermore, once an ex-RC joins the Episcopalian Church, they are likely to be confirmed and hardened in their heresies and sins. And again they are unlikely to escape all blame for that, due to having been taught better by the RCC, thus further increasing the likelihood of their eternal damnation. No matter how disagreeable I may find other RCs, I cannot wish this kind of future for them.
Resorting to spiritual bullying and blackmailing seem very inappropriate behavior for those who would claim to speak for the Body of Christ. I was born into the Catholic Church and am now worshipping in a parish that happens to be a part of the Episcopal Church. It is spiritual blackmail such as expressed here that cause people to turn, not just against the Roman Catholic Church, but against God altogether. (Through no merit of my own, God, Who is so good, has blessed me too much for me to be able to do that.)
I have never made a decision to leave the Catholic Church. However, the sense of morality that was instilled in me by my Catholic upbringing has made it impossible to in all good conscience co-sign some (not all) significant things (which I won't re-hash here) that the current leadership of the capital-C Catholic Church are promulgating. To the rational mind that God gave me, the particular things that concern and sadden me are blatantly un-Christian and sometimes seem downright hateful. Ultimately, for me, "by their fruits you shall know them" is more clearly to the point than "you are Peter and upon this rock", for which there can be varying interpretations.
I take very very seriously Jesus' prayer that all may be one. I remain a Catholic Christian, even if in the eyes of RC canon lawyers my status is irregular. Push as hard as they want they can't push me out of the Body of Christ.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Back to the event at hand ...
The "Colossal cock-up" theory does have the ring of truth to it. Especially if these guests got given a later-than-useful "arrival time" (1:30 or 1:45 for a 2 pm event?!?!) I know that +Andrus is a habitually punctual man.
As churchgeek says, maybe they're not as practiced as running some of these big events at St. Mary Maytag - go figure!
Part of the cock-up would be the lack of communication as to what was going on.
At Andrus' own installation at Grace, the then-Archbishop was an guest of honor (he had an assigned seat in the quire also had someone to sit with him and guide him around) and it apparently all went off like clockwork. I'm sure that the "special guests" were given a much earlier call time than 30 minutes before the event so they could be escorted in and seated in a seemly and dignified fashion. I also know that both the paid and volunteer staff at Grace have a lot of experience organizing and doing "big events". As far as I could tell from my spot in the cheap (basement) seats, it happened gracefully.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that there's any kind of limit to you caring for your brothers and sisters speaks volumes.
But, St Hypocrites the Wondertalker, not everybody can reach the heights of your miraculous charity and egregious humility. Only the other day Archangel Gabriel mentioned that he knows only two people who are totally full of something, the BVM and you. So please do not judge us too harshly if we cannot extend infinite care to each other in our comparative emptiness...
If you can't tell the difference between failing to live up to an ideal of charity, and declaring non-charity as official policy, we have nothing to talk about.
Bye.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium 14) Unlike cradle Episcopalians, most ex-RCs will have considerable difficulty pleading inculpable ignorance on this point. Furthermore, once an ex-RC joins the Episcopalian Church, they are likely to be confirmed and hardened in their heresies and sins. And again they are unlikely to escape all blame for that, due to having been taught better by the RCC, thus further increasing the likelihood of their eternal damnation. No matter how disagreeable I may find other RCs, I cannot wish this kind of future for them.
Resorting to spiritual bullying and blackmailing seem very inappropriate behavior for those who would claim to speak for the Body of Christ. I was born into the Catholic Church and am now worshipping in a parish that happens to be a part of the Episcopal Church. It is spiritual blackmail such as expressed here that cause people to turn, not just against the Roman Catholic Church, but against God altogether. (Through no merit of my own, God, Who is so good, has blessed me too much for me to be able to do that.)
I have never made a decision to leave the Catholic Church. However, the sense of morality that was instilled in me by my Catholic upbringing has made it impossible to in all good conscience co-sign some (not all) significant things (which I won't re-hash here) that the current leadership of the capital-C Catholic Church are promulgating. To the rational mind that God gave me, the particular things that concern and sadden me are blatantly un-Christian and sometimes seem downright hateful. Ultimately, for me, "by their fruits you shall know them" is more clearly to the point than "you are Peter and upon this rock", for which there can be varying interpretations.
I take very very seriously Jesus' prayer that all may be one. I remain a Catholic Christian, even if in the eyes of RC canon lawyers my status is irregular. Push as hard as they want they can't push me out of the Body of Christ.
Well said, truly.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
St. Mary Maytag? Wikipedia comes to the rescue.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
You can see the resemblance, right?
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Google is indeed your friend! The picture in the wiki article doesn't really do the agitator resemblence as usually seen from the skyline or the Geary St frontage justice, though. The Yelp article has a nice selection of pictures (including the interior, which I found quite pretty ... surprising because I thought the exterior was so fugly).
That was how it was first described to me by someone giving me directions ("hang a right at St. Mary Maytag and look for signs" - to get me onto the freeway).
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Another local nickname is "Our Lady of Perpetual Agitation."
I've never been to a liturgy there, but I've visited a couple of times. Very modern. One thing I like is how the (clear glass, large) windows at the corners bring the city into the worship space. It's also got a very fortunate situation, where the views of the city are quite beautiful. I've always found it conducive to meditation and prayer, especially with the Blessed Sacrament.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you can't tell the difference between failing to live up to an ideal of charity, and declaring non-charity as official policy, we have nothing to talk about.
Too bad for you that we were not talking about official policy. Unless you completely forgot to mention that it is the official policy of your church that caring without any limits must be extended to one's brothers and sisters in Christ. Is that the case? If so, what is the official policy of your church if someone fails to be infinitely caring?
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Resorting to spiritual bullying and blackmailing seem very inappropriate behavior for those who would claim to speak for the Body of Christ.
"Watch you step, you are standing at the edge of a cliff! You might fall and die. Come back." "Stop bullying and blackmailing me!"
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I remain a Catholic Christian, even if in the eyes of RC canon lawyers my status is irregular.
RC canon lawyers do not run the church, the bishops and the pope do. And you have left the Catholic Church, if not by anything else, then by assuming that your opinion of your status in the Church is more important than theirs.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Push as hard as they want they can't push me out of the Body of Christ.
I doubt that anybody "pushed" you. Maybe you pushed hard against the rock, and found yourself being propelled backwards. Also, you are of course still part of the Body of Christ in a wider sense. This means that you continue to have more access to grace, but also less of an excuse.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Too bad for you that we were not talking about official policy.
What is the purpose of quoting Lumen Gentium then?
If we are merely talking about your personal views, then there is no point in quoting something authored by others to demonstrate that your views are somehow 'right' according to the Catholic Church.
[ 10. October 2012, 09:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Triple Tiara: quote:
Sadly, that is the image that is going to be uppermost in peoples' minds - and no amount of explaining that the "basement" was a Conference Centre in which everyone who was vesting were "kept" until they were seated is going to undo this image of the bishop being imprisoned against his will in some dungeon. This is where I find Andrus being mischievous and assuming ill intent, despite and after assurances that none such was intended. Your question is indeed apposite: do you really think he was invited in order to be snubbed? Do you really, really think that is what was going on?
No, I think 'cock-up' or 'communication breakdown' is a more likely explanation than 'active malevolence'. I apologise for the tone of my previous post; I was irritated by IngoB's dismissal of the incident as trivial.
For your part, do you think that an official representative of the Anglican church would flounce out of a formal ceremony (in full episcopal regalia) for a trivial reason? Perhaps he did misunderstand what was happening, but it doesn't sound like any of the people in the basement with him tried particularly hard to talk him out of leaving.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What is the purpose of quoting Lumen Gentium then? If we are merely talking about your personal views, then there is no point in quoting something authored by others to demonstrate that your views are somehow 'right' according to the Catholic Church.
My views on the dangers of leaving the RCC are right according to Lumen Gentium. Or at least I sure can make a reasonable case that they are. However, this was our actual exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm correcting an overly positive picture that was painted of me caring for my brothers and sisters.
The idea that there's any kind of limit to you caring for your brothers and sisters speaks volumes.
So tell me then where there is a reference to Lumen Gentium here? I don't see any. Even if, by whatever strangely contorted logic, you think that Lumen Gentium is providing a limit to my caring (in spite of me saying that it provides the motivation), you are making a general statement here: "any kind of limit". Care to take that general statement back?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
No. Care to not remove the context as if I just turned up and talked to you one-on-one, rather than contributed to a message board where hundreds if not thousands of people are able to read the whole thing and enter the conversation at different points?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. Care to not remove the context as if I just turned up and talked to you one-on-one, rather than contributed to a message board where hundreds if not thousands of people are able to read the whole thing and enter the conversation at different points?
Very well then, here's your chance to explain what you thought the context was, and how your statement made some sense in that context.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, I think 'cock-up' or 'communication breakdown' is a more likely explanation than 'active malevolence'. I apologise for the tone of my previous post; I was irritated by IngoB's dismissal of the incident as trivial.
Fair enough, I quite understand the irritation
quote:
For your part, do you think that an official representative of the Anglican church would flounce out of a formal ceremony (in full episcopal regalia) for a trivial reason? Perhaps he did misunderstand what was happening, but it doesn't sound like any of the people in the basement with him tried particularly hard to talk him out of leaving.
No, I don't think it was a trivial reason - I think he was already agitated and unhappy about being there and so he was very quick to take offence. I don't think his offence was trivial, but he was too quick to think he was being snubbed. I think this is what the psychologists would call transference: I hates them and want to embarrass them so I'm sure they hates me and want to embarrass me".
I would imagine the people in the basement with him were not the ones who could have told him anything. The Archdiocesan spokesman said that by the time such a person arrived the bishop had left. We are not talking half an hour or even 10minutes into the start of the Mass - no, he had left by 2pm as the Mass started. Do remember it was time for "curtain-up" as it were: it's not as if there were a whole bunch of people hanging around idly with nothing to do.
Now I'm sure in future everyone will be far more alert to the sensitivities of Bishop Andrus and such a thing will be anticipated in future and planned against so that it could never recur. I don't think there was anyone who factored into planning that an ecumenical guest would be in the wrong place just as the entrance processions had started, and that they would also have to be cautious of his sensitivities.
The Archdiocese apologised immediately, but Bishop Andrus immediately launched a further criticism. Isn't it time for him to do some forgiving and smiling?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The tangent has kind of taken over the thread (and in this case I'm OK about that). It's a serious tangent.
It got a bit too personal (C3 violation territory) upstream a bit. By by all means keep on keeping on, both on the tangent and the initial reason for the post. But stick to posts, please without seeking to stick it to people.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
TT, I think you're really describing projection rather than transference.
That there may have been an element of projection underlying +Andrus' behaviour in the circumstance, I don't dispute.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Yup you are right - just call me Miss Malaprop
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Jane R asks: quote:
For your part, do you think that an official representative of the Anglican church would flounce out of a formal ceremony (in full episcopal regalia) for a trivial reason?
I know about fifteen bishops well enough to hazard a guess that two of them would. I do not know Bishop Andrus, so cannot say if he would be one of them.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
However, I don't know what you mean by 'truth' in this context, so for all I know you could be simply agreeing with me.
IngoB is arguing that people leaving the Roman Catholic Church are putting their souls in danger, and as usual the chorus replies "what about charity?"
I'm just putting in my own personal tuppence worth ref: the place of 'love' in the practical life of a Christian. I haven't, as it happens, commented on IngoB's remarkable suggestion that Catholics who leave their Church are probably going to Hell. But if you choose to see my response as some kind of predictable 'chorus', that's your call.
As it also happens, I was the one who brought up loving God as well as our neighbour. I could also add that the 'religion which pleases God' is looking after the widow and the orphan, which so far as I can see has nothing much to do with whatever ecclesial umbrella a Christian decides to shelter under. I can't help getting the impression, however, that for some folks it's all about the umbrella.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I'm just putting in my own personal tuppence worth ref: the place of 'love' in the practical life of a Christian. I haven't, as it happens, commented on IngoB's remarkable suggestion that Catholics who leave their Church are probably going to Hell. But if you choose to see my response as some kind of predictable 'chorus', that's your call.
The issue for me is that it is never explained how charity means he is wrong.
quote:
As it also happens, I was the one who brought up loving God as well as our neighbour. I could also add that the 'religion which pleases God' is looking after the widow and the orphan, which so far as I can see has nothing much to do with whatever ecclesial umbrella a Christian decides to shelter under. I can't help getting the impression, however, that for some folks it's all about the umbrella.
It seems to me that the two great commandments are often boiled down to "be pretty OK to your neighbors, and if you aren't it's not your fault so God is obligated to forgive you." "Love God" goes right out the door at any rate.
The Barthian in me believes that worshiping God in truth is our primary ethical action as Christians.
[ 10. October 2012, 13:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...IngoB's remarkable suggestion that Catholics who leave their Church are probably going to Hell.
To be fair to him, that wasn't what he said. What he said was:
quote:
A RC who leaves the RCC for the Episcopalian Church has by virtue of that act a considerable chance of going to hell
No more polite - although I think we have established some years back that he doesn't feel constrained by politesse when discussing these matters on the Ship - but certainly not what you imputed to him.
FWIW, from a Catholic perspective, what IngoB said must be objectively true. Whether saying it is helpful or prudent or, in the case of any individual, useful is a different matter. Little the bastard daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn said, wrote or did impresses me other than her reputed claim not to wish to make windows into other men's souls. It is a good policy and one which she might have done well to follow. Nonetheless, it ought to be uncontroversial enough on the Ship for a Catholic to point to the Church's teaching of the Church's place in the economy of salvation and certainly doesn't deserve the fit of the vapours it occasioned, let alone the manifestations of conscience and self-justification.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No more polite - although I think we have established some years back that he doesn't feel constrained by politesse when discussing these matters on the Ship - but certainly not what you imputed to him.
If'n it makes anyone feel better, he treats people who agree with him exactly the same.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As it also happens, I was the one who brought up loving God as well as our neighbour. I could also add that the 'religion which pleases God' is looking after the widow and the orphan, which so far as I can see has nothing much to do with whatever ecclesial umbrella a Christian decides to shelter under. I can't help getting the impression, however, that for some folks it's all about the umbrella.
I already mentioned above the remarkable absorption of the 1st great commandment into the 2nd, as well as the wholesale disappearance of the spiritual works of mercy. But how one is to fulfil "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." is clearly not independent of the "ecclesiastic umbrella" one is under - unless one reduces the 1st great commandment to the 2nd. Furthermore, if one does not throw away the spiritual works of mercy, then how "To admonish the sinner. To instruct the ignorant. To counsel the doubtful." is not going to be independent of the "ecclesiastic umbrella" either. Hence this comment by Anselmina is a perfect demonstration of what I mentioned above. If one ignores three-quarters of what our Lord said (one of two great commandments, and one half of the remaining one), then one can come to the conclusion that the Church matters very little indeed. But if one follows all our Lord said, then not.
A further point, which I believe is constantly being ignored: There is a principle difference between acute and systemic issues. One can understand much of this strange rejection of large parts of the Christian religion as an overemphasis on acute issues. Acute issues are easy. If someone is dying of hunger in front of me, and I happen to have a piece of bread in my hand, then it is not so difficult to figure out what God wants me to do. But if I am going to admonish someone who is living in sin by not marrying their partner, then that's a ticklish business. How to proceed there without doing more harm than good? Is it even my business to say something? Etc.
However, this distinction is a false one. It relies on giving only acute examples in one case, and only systemic ones in the other. Yes, if someone is dying right in front of me, it is easy to come to the conclusion that I should give him some bread. But what about combating hunger in Africa? Is it actually best to ship lots of bread to Africa, or should we rather try to give them seeds and teach them how to farm better? How is our aid going to arrive in the right hands at the right time? Is it justified to prop up an unjust regime engaged in warfare by feeding its starving population? Etc. Hunger can be a systemic problem as well, and then it becomes just as difficult to arrive at the "correct" plan of action.
Likewise, to admonish the sinner does not have to be a complicated thing. If we see someone about to murder someone else, we have no problems shouting out "Don't do it!" or perhaps "Drop your weapon!" At least we have no problems considering what is appropriate to the situation, though we may hesitate out of fear for our own lives. It is perhaps true that "admonishing sinners" is more often a systemic, and hence difficult, proposition; whereas "feeding the hungry" is more often an acute, and hence simple, one. But such statistics do not determine what are valid concerns for a Christian life.
The Church is largely a systemic issue. It is an important issue, and it will not go away. We can pretend that it will be solved by looking after the widow and the orphan, but it just won't. Like the poor, the Church will always be with us.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Apparently the Episcopal Bishop was stuck in the basement while at the installation of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco:
The disagreement of what happened is whether the Episcopal Bishop arrived early or late. If he arrived late, then the RCs had a point in holding him until a suitable moment when they could let him in. If he arrived early or on time, then there is reason to suspect that it was intentional, probably because the RCs did not like the open letter he wrote.
Exactly, but good grief, am I expected to read through all of what is now four pages of commentary on this? However I did read quite a few comments.
By way of disclosure, I am a gay Episcopalian, though not living in San Francisco. My take on this is that Marc Andrus needs a better editor. Even though the national slogan of The Episcopal Church printed on every standard church sign is that "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You," I think it was ill advised for Marc to issue a public letter with that invitation for disaffected Roman Catholics.
I can easily imagine the new Roman Catholic archbishop or those on his staff going ballistic over the Andrus letter. Consequently, I can also easily imagine the ham handed and embarrassing way he was treated at the installation event he announced that he would attend. Andrus took offence and promptly left, I'm sure going directly to his computer and telephone.
Given all this, it's most certainly time to let things cool down. Perhaps at some later date some form of rapprochement might be attempted.
*
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Triple Tiara: quote:
No, I don't think it was a trivial reason - I think he was already agitated and unhappy about being there and so he was very quick to take offence.
I think I'd agree with you there.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
FWIW i totally agree that Bp. Andrus ought q not to include that "invitation" to disaffected Roman Catholics. There's a time and place for everything. The circumstances that prompted his letter were neither the time or the place. A very poor move on his part.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
FWIW i totally agree that Bp. Andrus ought not to have included that "invitation" to disaffected Roman Catholics. There's a time and place for everything. The circumstances that prompted his letter were neither the time or the place. A very poor move on his part that does not reflect well on his leadership abilities.
[ 10. October 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
Sorry that the above post appears twice. I was trying to edit the first post but instead the edited post appeared as a new post. If the management wants to delete the 1st of the 2 posts please do so.
[ 10. October 2012, 17:45: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
[/QUOTE My take on this is that Marc Andrus needs a better editor. Even though the national slogan of The Episcopal Church printed on every standard church sign is that "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You," I think it was ill advised for Marc to issue a public letter with that invitation for disaffected Roman Catholics.
I can easily imagine the new Roman Catholic archbishop or those on his staff going ballistic over the Andrus letter. Consequently, I can also easily imagine the ham handed and embarrassing way he was treated at the installation event he announced that he would attend. Andrus took offence and promptly left, I'm sure going directly to his computer and telephone.
Given all this, it's most certainly time to let things cool down. Perhaps at some later date some form of rapprochement might be attempted.
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I have to confess I didn't appreciate fully the difference between 'probably' going to hell, and having a 'considerable chance' of going to hell. I guess the cigarette-paper slipped. Again, I point out that my comments were about the use of the Golden Law (or Rule) in scripture and not on IngoB's assertion.
As it happens I am surprized to learn that the RCC itself believes that someone who has been baptized by the Catholic Church may yet lose their salvation. I can't help it if Trisagion is disappointed that one SOF poster, at least, doesn't have the 'economy of salvation' of the RCC at her finger-tips. Of course, if some posters weren't so apparently prickly and dogmatic in their responses, finding interesting things out about the RCC might be more profitable than it often is here.
What is deeply ironic about this thread, to me, is this. I remember very clearly Trisagion portraying his 'universal experience' of Anglican ecumenical relations as being typified by their being nice to one's face, saying what they thought others wanted to hear, and then going off and doing what they were going to do anyway. Here's an Episcopal Bishop who seems to be rather all too clear in his ecumenical differences with Rome, but according to the complains on this thread: how dare he?
I would've been horrified and deeply embarrassed if any invited guest of mine had been given the runaround this way at a service - accidental or not. But the Catholic response here seems to be: well, he wrote something snitty about us, and it was probably all his own fault he didn't get shown his seat, anyway - nothing to see here. If it had happened the other way, the wailing about nasty librul piskies, and their two-faced ecumenical tactics would've been audible from outer-space.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I would've been horrified and deeply embarrassed if any invited guest of mine had been given the runaround this way at a service - accidental or not. But the Catholic response here seems to be: well, he wrote something snitty about us, and it was probably all his own fault he didn't get shown his seat, anyway - nothing to see here.
I am going to guess you mean, the Catholic response featured on this thread, as it's my understanding the office of the Archbishop expressed dismay a long time ago. It's the freaking LAYFOLK in both camps that are causing all the problems.
To elaborate on what I said before, both men would earn my utmost respect if they got in front of a camera, stood hand in hand, and said "Shut the hell up, people! You're making our jobs ten times harder!"
[ 10. October 2012, 19:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I would've been horrified and deeply embarrassed if any invited guest of mine had been given the runaround this way at a service - accidental or not. But the Catholic response here seems to be: well, he wrote something snitty about us, and it was probably all his own fault he didn't get shown his seat, anyway - nothing to see here.
I am going to guess you mean, the Catholic response featured on this thread, as it's my understanding the office of the Archbishop expressed dismay a long time ago. It's the freaking LAYFOLK in both camps that are causing all the problems.
Yep, that's what I meant. My remarks are directed towards posters here, who think that even more than accidental incompetence the Bishop somehow deliberately manuevered himself out of the cathedral before the service!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And in the interest of ecumenical harmony, I am going to offer an unequivocal apology to the Archbishop for deliberately calling him "Corleone" on my Facebook page. I jumped the gun, mea culpa.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Anselmina a few things.
This is not simply about there being a disagreement, that's a matter of record. Rather my disquiet about Bishop Andrus's letter to his Diocese is the tone and it's personal insult. I agree with Mr Rob: he needs an editor. Here's the opening paragraph: quote:
Dear Ones,
On the Feast of Saint Francis, patron saint of our city by the bay, Salvatore Cordileone will be installed as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco. The announcement of his appointment by Pope Benedict has come with mixed reactions and feelings from San Franciscans of all or no faith tradition. Bishop Cordileone was an active supporter of Proposition 8, which I and the other Episcopal bishops throughout California opposed.
How about this as an alternative:
quote:
On the Feast of Saint Francis, patron saint of our city by the bay, Salvatore Cordileone will be installed as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco. While I have profound disagreements with him on many issues, and particularly on Proposition 8, I offer him my prayers and best wishes as he takes up his appointment.
He could then wax lyrical about his support for Proposition 8 and continuing all his enthusiastic support for the causes he holds dear, to remind people of his priorities.
This bit is not a statement of disagreement, but a directly personal reference:
quote:
Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.
You say: quote:
Yep, that's what I meant. My remarks are directed towards posters here, who think that even more than accidental incompetence the Bishop somehow deliberately manuevered himself out of the cathedral before the service!
Bishop Andrus said this: quote:
At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, "I think I understand, and feel I should leave." Her response was, "Thank you for being understanding." I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever made to explain the delay or any process for seating. I arrived early, before the time given my assistant, and waited to leave until after the service had begun.
2pm was when the service started. The Archdiocesan spokesman, George Wesolek's, account: quote:
Church staff were looking for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without disrupting the service, according to Wesolek. When they went to retrieve him, he had already left.
And, of course, crucially: quote:
"We had no intention of excluding him at all," the spokesman, George Wesolek, told the AP.
"If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize."
So let me restate what I think.
1. The organisers screwed up. The full blow-by-blow account of the logistics show they should have been better prepared. The fault is with them.
2. They should (and did) apologise.
3. I think it is to Abp Cordileone's credit that he has not issued a like for like response.
4. Bp Andrus exercised very poor judgement: in his statement ahead of the Abp's installation, in his looking for insult where none was intended, and in making such a detailed public statement about it. It seems like he is saying; "see! I told you he was a meany!"
5. It's very sad that this has all turned into a great festival of sectarianism - on both sides.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Grrrrrr I meant of course: He could then wax lyrical about his opposition to Proposition 8
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.
Reads like a suggestion to Episcopalians rather than an invitation to Roman Catholics. He's simply saying that if disaffected Catholics do turn up, as will not be out the question, Episcopalians should welcome them rather than treat them with suspicion.
You have to be looking for an insult here, unless you think the idea that some of the faithful might find the conservatism of the new Archbishop difficult to accept to be insulting.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As it happens I am surprized to learn that the RCC itself believes that someone who has been baptized by the Catholic Church may yet lose their salvation.
What did you think "mortal sin" and the sacrament of confession were about? In Catholicism, it is considered a grave sin - namely that of presumption - to take for granted one's salvation.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.
Reads like a suggestion to Episcopalians rather than an invitation to Roman Catholics. He's simply saying that if disaffected Catholics do turn up, as will not be out the question, Episcopalians should welcome them rather than treat them with suspicion.
You have to be looking for an insult here, unless you think the idea that some of the faithful might find the conservatism of the new Archbishop difficult to accept to be insulting.
I don't know, Arethosemyfeet. I have several RC friends who crossed back over the Tiber to Anglicanland and they and I are all comfortable with that-- I think (pace any monsigniori reading) that this can be very healthy move for many, but for Bp Andrus to have said this in the context of personalized disagreement over public issues is to my mind a clear insult, and unless Bp Andrus is so seriously self-absorbed to be dysfunctional, then I cannot see how it was intended to be anything but an insult.
I do not know if anyone comes out of this smelling like lavender and roses and think that many would do well to heed my dreadlocked niece who regularly directs us to Dial It Down.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
the bastard daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn
You are of course entitled to whatever opinion of dead Queens you wish! But I would request that you don't express those opinions in a way which could be open to being read as perpetuating the idea that illegitimacy disgraces the child.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone’s installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.
Reads like a suggestion to Episcopalians rather than an invitation to Roman Catholics. He's simply saying that if disaffected Catholics do turn up, as will not be out the question, Episcopalians should welcome them rather than treat them with suspicion.
You have to be looking for an insult here, unless you think the idea that some of the faithful might find the conservatism of the new Archbishop difficult to accept to be insulting.
As a suggestion to Episcopalians, it's really weird. Lots and lots of the people who come to the Episcopal Church from other parts of Christianity are Catholics. In my southern California parish, I'd say roughly half of the people who attend the adult confirmation classes have left the Catholic Church. I doubt things are a whole lot different in San Francisco. Episcopalians don't need to be told to welcome disaffected Catholics; we're quite happy to do that and have been for years.
Honestly, I think he ended up putting it as a suggestion to Episcopalians because he didn't want it to sound like an open invitation to Catholics -- but to my mind that's pretty much what he's saying. The occasion of the installation of a new Catholic archbishop is not the time to be saying to Catholics, "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" -- Catholics can read the signs on our churches just fine.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
the bastard daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn
You are of course entitled to whatever opinion of dead Queens you wish! But I would request that you don't express those opinions in a way which could be open to being read as perpetuating the idea that illegitimacy disgraces the child.
Amen.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As it happens I am surprized to learn that the RCC itself believes that someone who has been baptized by the Catholic Church may yet lose their salvation.
What did you think "mortal sin" and the sacrament of confession were about? In Catholicism, it is considered a grave sin - namely that of presumption - to take for granted one's salvation.
As I'm not a member of your club, Ingo, there's a strong chance that what I think of certain Catholic doctrines is unlikely to be what Catholics themselves think about them; either as a matter of pure information or personally . Informationally, I confess I really didn't believe that the Catholic Church still held on to the medieval tenets of those dying unabsolved going to Hell, or that apostasizing from the RCC could lead to damnation etc. From my own Catholic connections these subjects either don't come up at all, or seem, on the whole, to be considered old hat and hardly credible. But I appreciate that that doesn't mean that officially such doctrine still holds. Or at least I do now.
Thank you, Triple Tiara, for your response. Yes, the letter was ungracious. I'm sure he could hardly have expected to be treated like everyone's favourite uncle when he turned up at the service! And I agree it was most likely an organizational error. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong person. It's hard to imagine it could be anything else.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
I would have thought that if the Archbishop really wanted to upset the ECUSA bishop the most effective way would have been not to invite him as a representative of Anglicanism but instead to have invited the bishop of the local continuing anglican church.Perhaps he should make a note of this for the future.
Looks like a flounce by the ECUSA bishop to me.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I would have thought that if the Archbishop really wanted to upset the ECUSA bishop the most effective way would have been not to invite him as a representative of Anglicanism but instead to have invited the bishop of the local continuing anglican church.Perhaps he should make a note of this for the future.
Looks like a flounce by the ECUSA bishop to me.
I suspect your last sentence is correct, aumbry. At least, he certainly took the opportunity to take offense very publicly.
As far as the local continuing bishop, I'll have to ask him the next time I see him. His office is not that far from Our Lady of Maytag, in Pacific Heights; I wonder if he was invited!
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I would have thought that if the Archbishop really wanted to upset the ECUSA bishop the most effective way would have been not to invite him as a representative of Anglicanism but instead to have invited the bishop of the local continuing anglican church. Perhaps he should make a note of this for the future.
Looks like a flounce by the ECUSA bishop to me.
The invitations to whatever ecumenical dignitaries the archdiocese of San Francisco had in mind would have been sent out long before the publication of Marc Andrus' letter, assuming that some of the content of his letter sparked all this.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Anselmina I was most surprised that you were surprised to learn that according to the teachings of the RC church baptism does not guarantee eternal salvationfor Catholics.
I was at a talk given by an Irish Jesuit the other day and the subject was 'religious liberty in the wake of Vatican 2'
He mentioned that in the eyes of the RC church liberty was granted via a knowledge of the Truth 'The Truth shall set you free'He also mentioned another old axiom 'Error has no rights'
These were propositions of the Catholic church,applied in a rather illiberal way by the Catholic church before Vatican 2.
I would think that virtually all religious groups would believe that they have the fullness of Truth necessary for salvation and that others who think somewhat differently are failing in this respect.Witness for example the way that Christians have treated Jews down the centuries as indeed the chosen people but somehow missing or lacking something.
The Jesuit mentioned that there are certain theological propositions but that they may be interpreted imperfectly by Catholics- as in their treatment of the 'perfidious' Jews.But there are also many imperfections of interpretation by non-Catholics of what they believe that Catholics believe.One only has to read some of the things which are said by non-Catholics about the Catholic church and its beliefs on these boards.
It is good however that we have discussions on these boards as I would never have thought that some non-Catholics thought that the Catholic church taught that all baptised Catholics go automatically to Heaven (with the suggestion perhaps that those who are not baptised Catholics go to Hell !) If that were the case why would we have to bother about the effects of sin.
The Church teaches that if we are sorry for our sins the Lord will forgive us.Those who in the full knowledge and understanding of the Truths of the Catholic church willfully abandon the Church and remain in the end impenitent cannot enter the Kingdom of God,even if they had been previously baptised.This is what,I think,IngoB was getting at.
However we do not know who has that full knowledge and understanding.Surely many of those who leave the visible community of the Catholic church will do so because they see these truths in a different light and come honestly to an interpretation of what the Church is which is different from that which is proposed by the visible community of the Catholic church.
I think that there are some Christian communities which believe that baptism confers an automatic entry into Heaven for the members of the group,but I thought that the major mainstream Protestant churches also propose that one has to follow to the best of one's ability the way of the Gospel to have a chance of getting through the Pearly Gates.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0