|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Bede's American Successor notes:
quote:
For me, it is not that I think others need to give our methods the same respect that we do. I would hope that, at the very least, they would acknowledge that our polity is different.
Indeed, that is what I meant; I had expressed it more obliquely. Describing precisely mutual incomprehension is more challenging than I had initially thought.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As far as we are aware, the ABC did not legally prevent Jeffrey John from becoming a bishop, nor did he say that he would refuse to take part in his consecration (though I suppose it is possible that someone might have hinted at such a thing in order to persuade John not to take up the post)
There was quite overwhelming personal pressure (far more invidious than legal measures) from ++ for JJ to withdraw from accepting the post of suffragan Bp; combined with JJ's own developed sense of obedience to one's Father in Christ and responsible concern for the (supposed) unity of the CofE. I don't recall that the CofE allows general participation in, or interference with, the appointment of Bps; it is up to the ABp's Selection Secretary, the selection panel, the Diocesan Bp (in the case of suffragans) and the ABC, along with the Prime Minister and the Queen. I fail to see that any appointment would have been announced had not all of these people agreed to the nomination. JJ's orientation was hardly a secret. And this is from several personally known sources far closer to the actual truth and centre of it than the media, most of which missed the actual principles at stake.
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops. As I recall, the NT in particular says nothing whatsoever about forbidding a homosexual to be clergy of any sort. Presumably it's OK for him to be a Dean but not a Bp?
And I can add that sources of mine (outside the media) have indicated that JJ's name was not on the original list sent by Oxford to Lambeth. My sources believe it was added there. No one was suggesting the ABC himself added it, but there was speculation as who who did it and why.
JOhn
[ 17. January 2007, 04:30: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
There was quite overwhelming personal pressure (far more invidious than legal measures) from ++ for JJ to withdraw from accepting the post of suffragan Bp; combined with JJ's own developed sense of obedience to one's Father in Christ and responsible concern for the (supposed) unity of the CofE. I don't recall that the CofE allows general participation in, or interference with, the appointment of Bps; it is up to the ABp's Selection Secretary, the selection panel, the Diocesan Bp (in the case of suffragans) and the ABC, along with the Prime Minister and the Queen. I fail to see that any appointment would have been announced had not all of these people agreed to the nomination.
I suppose this highlights the difference between the CofE and ECUSA in this matters. The diocese (clergy and lay people) are not involved in the selection process of the bishop. The problem began after the nomination had been announced because many people in the diocese were not happy. If we elected bishops, I suspect the diocese would not have elected him.
I actually admire Jeffrey John for being gracious and stepping down. He came out looking better than his opponents. But I've only just thought about it from the perspective of actually doing the job -- it would have been very hard for him to be bishop with that level of distrust from the clergy one is supposed to be overseeing.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops. As I recall, the NT in particular says nothing whatsoever about forbidding a homosexual to be clergy of any sort. Presumably it's OK for him to be a Dean but not a Bp?
This is not strictly true. In his writings and lectures it is quite clear that Jeffrey John regarded himself as being in a long term same-sex relationship which he described as a covenanted partnership. At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching). The fact is that people opposed his appointment because of this highly ambiguous relationship which had once been sexual and now wasn't in the same way that they would oppose the appointment of a heterosexual who had been cohabiting for years and then decided to get married. Furthermore, in the case of both Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson it is putting the cart before the horse to consecrate them as bishops before the Church (through its due processes) has decided that their partnerships are licit.
As to your last question, no I don't think it is okay for him to be a dean and not a bishop. He should be neither. However a bishop has a specific universal and apostolic ministry as well as being a more high profile position. The fact is that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion in appointing a practising homosexual bishop that you have deliberately changed the teaching of the Church (by placing facts on the ground rather than theological debate and synodical decision-making) whereas same sex partnerships among other clergy have more of the nature of an anomaly.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Not for the other religious organisations of his day, perhaps - but passe His prayers 'that all might be one' at the Last Supper, it would seem that the unity of His Church was dear to Him indeed. Of course, once one starts proof-texting, one can always cite that business about equal-yokiing and cutting-off-of-hands, so the situation is far from a limpid.
Nevertheless, unity is not something to be harmed lightly, especially as Christian disunity makes us look very silly in the eyes of the world.
If we're proof texting then its worth mentioning Sunday's NT reading for Evensong, Ephesians 4:1-16 where Paul talks about unity as something that Christians possess in the Spirit and insists that they make every effort to make fast that unity "with bonds of peace".
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way. The TEC conservatives saw an opportunity for grandstanding and snatched it with both hands. The Primates of the Global South saw an opportunity for a shift of the balance of power within the communion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
With the exception of +Rowan (and +Robin) I don't think any of the protagonists has been remotely interested in unity, so it's unsurprising its not on the cards.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The Bede's American Successor wrote: quote:
Please pay attention:
Bishops in TEC are not appointed. There are a whole lot of people involved in the election of our bishops. To say our bishops are appointed totally misses the basis of the polity of TEC.
I'm not sure about American usage, but in UK usage, "appointment" can equally refer to the job itself rather than how somebody got it. Therefore you are likely to see people from this side of the pond continuing to use the word even when they know how your bishops are elected. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand the election thing.
Though I suspect many away from these boards (and some here) don't know and you are right to remind them of the fact.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching).
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Callan wrote: quote:
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way. The TEC conservatives saw an opportunity for grandstanding and snatched it with both hands. The Primates of the Global South saw an opportunity for a shift of the balance of power within the communion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
With the exception of +Rowan (and +Robin) I don't think any of the protagonists has been remotely interested in unity, so it's unsurprising its not on the cards.
Ah, well now we're getting somewhere. Just add Spawn's comment about putting facts on the ground, and you've got as concise a summary of what is going on here as anyone needs. Bring on the scapegoats!
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
And yet, you are asking the TEC to agree to follow the dictates of the Anglican Communion against what the majority of the TEC currently teaches?
How do you reconcile those two? Or are you saying a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
I'm not quite following the logic of even if you follow the rules, but don't agree with them, then you are breaking them? Isn't that a little odd?
As far as South Carolina is concerned, they are asking for something that has never been asked for before. They don't have a problem with their bishop, but don't want +KJS to be their primate. And there is no current policy in place for that. Is there in any Anglican church? Can a church in the CofE decide not to want ++Rowan to be their ABC?
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I actually admire Jeffrey John for being gracious and stepping down. He came out looking better than his opponents.
To be quite honest, I'm hard-pressed to think how -JJ could possibly have avoided coming out of the debacle looking better than his opponents. Burning down an orphanage in a fit of pique, perhaps.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And yet, you are asking the TEC to agree to follow the dictates of the Anglican Communion against what the majority of the TEC currently teaches?
How do you reconcile those two? Or are you saying a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
I don't understand how there's any contradiction in what I've said. I'm in favour of orderly decision-making and I think TEC's decision-making has been chaotic. I don't think TEC has valued its dissenters enough to move into unprecedented territory (as the C of E did in 1993 with the Act of Synod) in order to preserve as much unity as possible.
Furthermore, TEC was warned that its Communion with other Provinces would be impaired or broken in 2003 and it still went ahead. TEC responded half-heartedly to Windsor. For want of a better phrase, TEC still thinks it can have its cake and eat it. Despite attempts at trying over the past century, the Anglican Communion still does not have a developed sense of authority. It was probably inevitable therefore that it would fragment at some point. For most of us, things will just carry on as usual in our parish churches and we'll barely notice the shifts and changes which are taking place.
My main sadness about the whole mess is that the Anglican Communion had real promise as a contributor to the unity of all Churches. Now it just seems to be adding to schism and disunity.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
PataLeBon writes
quote:
...are you saying [if] a church in the Anglican communion believes something that the majority does not then they should no longer be a part of the communion?
Of course they should no longer be a part of the communion - if the difference in belief is important enough, and if communion is to mean anything!
In Jeffery John's case, it was his teaching, not his (current) lifestyle, which was the real impediment to his being a bishop.
'It pertains to [the office of a bishop] to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions' as well as to be himself 'an example of righteous and goldy living' (Canon C18 of the Church of England).
Is this a Pond Difference?
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Dave Marshall wrote:
quote:
They are the ones who have moved. This letter is saying, that doesn't matter, TEC is right, the conservative majority are wrong because TEC says so. It's claiming authority in the Communion that I don't see it has.
No. What it's claiming is the right to do what it's done, which of course it has. Individual Provinces moved ahead, or not, on the issue of women priests and were allowed so to do, which was a massive break from traditional attitudes at the time. I don't see how this is different, except that the political dynamics have changed.
Consequently it's the Windsor Report that is the biggest break with tradition thus far, and something that worries me greatly.
Callan wrote:
quote:
This, of course, is precisely what didn't happen. TEC knew damn well that electing +Robinson would cause a blazing row and went ahead and did it any way.
I'm not sure that it's that straightforward. The Episkies of NH elected Robinson, and I don't know how far they knew/cared what the rest of the Communion thought. Once that had happened, you couldn't really have the same Machiavellian stitch-up that we had over JJ. The fact that TEC elects bishops I think gives them a strong mandate and a clear indication of the views of the folks in the pews which we don't have in the CofE. As a result anyone can claim to be voicing the views of the majority, because we've no real means of discerning them.
Spawn said:
quote:
Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Yes you are. Plenty of thoroughly unpleasant types did oppose him on those grounds, and I find your sophistry unconvincing. Plenty of priests and even the odd bishop believe practicing homosexuality to be acceptable. Should they be dismissed? If not then orientation is the issue not their opinions, let's not try and pretend otherwise.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Yes you are. Plenty of thoroughly unpleasant types did oppose him on those grounds, and I find your sophistry unconvincing. Plenty of priests and even the odd bishop believe practicing homosexuality to be acceptable. Should they be dismissed? If not then orientation is the issue not their opinions, let's not try and pretend otherwise.
I've usually found unpleasant, bigoted types on both sides of the arguments. I'm sometimes embarrassed by other evangelicals and know plenty of liberals who share the same distaste for some of their fellow travellers.
But you really should try reading my post again to understand that my argument was not purely about Jeffrey John's teaching but the lifestyle he had adopted for much of his ministry, and his 'covenanted partnership'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't understand how there's any contradiction in what I've said. I'm in favour of orderly decision-making and I think TEC's decision-making has been chaotic.
So pretty typical of Americans. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It seemed to be pretty straight forward to me. In the TEC, once someone has been ordained a priest they can be elected a bishop. That's been well known since the 1980's at least. Seems to me that the Communion should have decided to break communion with the TEC in the 90's if they didn't want anyone like +Robinson bishop. It was only a matter of time.
quote:
I don't think TEC has valued its dissenters enough to move into unprecedented territory (as the C of E did in 1993 with the Act of Synod) in order to preserve as much unity as possible.
True. I have been aggravated with General Convention over their treatment of dioceses who are still having difficulties with woman priests. I don't think that the TEC has a good way to deal with the minority opinions that exist and will always exist. (And realize that I do speak from one in my diocese. The only reason that my current church is still in the diocese is the fact that the bishop respects those that don't agree with him, and we still respect him. But we disagree on much and the parish does little on a diocesan level.)
quote:
Furthermore, TEC was warned that its Communion with other Provinces would be impaired or broken in 2003 and it still went ahead. TEC responded half-heartedly to Windsor. For want of a better phrase, TEC still thinks it can have its cake and eat it. Despite attempts at trying over the past century, the Anglican Communion still does not have a developed sense of authority. It was probably inevitable therefore that it would fragment at some point. For most of us, things will just carry on as usual in our parish churches and we'll barely notice the shifts and changes which are taking place.
My main sadness about the whole mess is that the Anglican Communion had real promise as a contributor to the unity of all Churches. Now it just seems to be adding to schism and disunity.
When you make absolute rules for what you have to believe beyond the creeds, then you have a problem, as scripture is always subject to interpretation. And sometimes tradition is simply doing it because it has always been done that way.
Once you make rules, then some will be in and some will be out. I'm not sure how one can ask for the unity of all Churches when you are asking that Christianity be more than the ancient creeds and believing in Jesus.
[ 17. January 2007, 12:18: Message edited by: PataLeBon ]
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerusalemcross:
My point is that JJ's lifestyle was in accordance with what the House of Bps had fairly clearly stated as guidelines for clergy behaviour; and the vocal elements in Oxford holding the CofE to financial ransom (among other things) had no business in implying JJ was lying about his personal life. Or that their own "standards" were of a higher authority than those given to clergy by their own Bishops.
That's another topic entirely, and one done to death already. For what its worth, those few evangelicals here in Southwark, including clergy, who expressed an opinion in my hearing, all thought that Jeffrey John should have been a bishop. Even those who thought that Gene Robinson shouldn't. The issues were seen as quite different.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
PataLeBon wrote quote:
When you make absolute rules for what you have to believe beyond the creeds, then you have a problem, as scripture is always subject to interpretation. And sometimes tradition is simply doing it because it has always been done that way.
Well put! This neatly sums up the problems involved with the misapplications of both a protestant an a catholic approach, respectively.
Tradition - as opposed to tradition - is the embodied understanding of the truth. Understand what the truth is and you can change the way you convey the truth. Fail to understand the truth and you risk conveying some other message entirely.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And I can add that sources of mine (outside the media) have indicated that JJ's name was not on the original list sent by Oxford to Lambeth. My sources believe it was added there. No one was suggesting the ABC himself added it, but there was speculation as who who did it and why.
JOhn
This is true. The ABC didn't add JJ to the list. It was added by someone else involved very near the centre of the process, as I understand it was felt that the candidates originally on offer weren't quite what was wanted for +Reading. Take that as you will. Quite frankly, with someone of JJ's abilities, I'm surprised that he wasn't on the original list. And, yes the point about CofE Bps being appointed (supposedly sans input from anyone outside the official selection process ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) and ECUSA ones being elected illustrates a lot of differences between us.
Some of the concealed (e.g. well hidden under the mantle of fulminating about his orientation)objections from elements of extreme conservative evos in Oxford were also concerned with his churchmanship and their suspicion that he was "too carflick" , eg an extremely well educated, articulate and published theologian who would have been able to properly balance their own particular Biblical teaching and views (among other things). JJ has done considerable exegesis on the subject of homosexuality in the Bible. As for some Southwark evangelical clergy being in favour of his appointment, they, of course, all had on-the-spot evidence in their own diocese of his work, preaching, teaching and behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
At some random date in the 1990s he reluctantly subscribed to the discipline and teaching of the church by deciding that this relationship should be non-sexual (I say reluctantly because in his lobbying and writings he opposed the teaching).
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Quite. I don't see any of the married Anglican clergy refugees who were redone as RC priests voluntarily offering themselves into observing the rule of celibacy which is mandatory for other RC priests. They wouldn't have to get a divorce, "just" forever refrain from further sexual partnerships with their wives.
[ 17. January 2007, 14:48: Message edited by: jerusalemcross ]
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Jerusalemcross sez:
quote:
Quite. I don't see any of the married Anglican clergy refugees who were redone as RC priests voluntarily offering themselves into observing the rule of celibacy which is mandatory for other RC priests. They wouldn't have to get a divorce, "just" forever refrain from further sexual partnerships with their wives.
Apart from the obvious comment on this paragraph, which we'll take as read, an undertaking of celibacy within marriage (companiate marriage, I believe it is called) is a possible option for married Latin-rite RCs seeking to be ordained priests. The only case I can recall is of a professor from Paderborn in the days of Pius XII.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ECUSA and the CofE have a set of virtually identical liturgies. Indeed, I should think that the formal, prescribed liturgies are far more apt to be ignored among the Evos of the CofE than in TEC. Further, in TEC I haven't experienced any generalised liturgical differences between theologically and socially conservative parishes and liberal ones (if we must use these dreaded terms).
Overall, ECUSA's really a pretty normal, boring place most of the time.
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds? Am I wrong to find such scary? If this kind of thing would happen during the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the differences between TEC and CofE may be minimal. If not, then this conversation does have something to talk about.
Yes, restive local laity are reassured from time to time: relax, things will be just the same when we go to church next Sunday as they were last Sunday. Never mind if in the top echelons our mother church seems to be out a-whoring. We do worry, though, that one of these days she will never come home again and we'll be orphaned.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds? Am I wrong to find such scary? If this kind of thing would happen during the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the differences between TEC and CofE may be minimal. If not, then this conversation does have something to talk about.
Yes, restive local laity are reassured from time to time: relax, things will be just the same when we go to church next Sunday as they were last Sunday. Never mind if in the top echelons our mother church seems to be out a-whoring. We do worry, though, that one of these days she will never come home again and we'll be orphaned.
I believe that in the TEC the higher up you get there is something that makes you flakier, at least liturgy wise.
True, maybe we ought to do something about that, but I'm not sure how or what.
However, I'm not sure how you connect liturgical stupidity with whoring. I've seen many liturgical stupid moments done by people who really meant well, but really didn't have a clue about what they were borrowing or what it really meant or, on the flip side, those in the pews who didn't understand the liturgy because it was something different than they had experienced before.
I don't know if +KJS borrowed something without really understanding it, made something up, or if we don't understand. Without facts everything is just speculation.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That is an astonishingly churlish thing to say. Fr. John, IIRC, made the decision - which I imagine must have been an extraordinarily painful one for both him and his partner - in the context of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation out of a desire to be faithful to the church which he serves as a priest. I would have thought that fidelity to the church counted for something, even when it was one of the pooves who was displaying it.
Your own life, I suppose, has been a model of fidelity to the precepts of the Gospels?
Well, I'm not seeking high office in the Church of England, neither am I a clergyman. Perhaps I am being churlish, but I get absolutely sick of this account of events that those nasty evangelical bigots opposed someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
You already have high office in the C of E - as a layman. Any distinction between ordained and lay, in terms of hierarchy or the demands of the gospel is surely unscriptural.
On the issue of whether Jeffrey's teaching was out of line, it (in the book he did for us in Affirming Catholicism) was in line with the House of bishops' document 'Issues of Human Sexuality' which allowed laypeople in conscience to form stable L/G relationships (and i know that contradicts what I said in the previous paragraph but is shoiws what a mess the C of E is in).
Re - the wider issue of ECUSA, the Anglican Communion is committed, after Lambeth '98, to a listeing oricess. Could it not be said that ECUSA actually did the listening changed its mind. Contrast that with the Ugandan bishops who refued to hear a presesntation from Changing Attitudes and even refused to sit in the same room as them. They claimed that the Church was following some 'secular agenda' yet Thomas Aquinas wrote, "every truth, no matter by whom it may be spoken, comes from the
Holy Spirit."
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
If ECUSA as a whole can't do anything about who gets appointed bishop, then would someone care to explain what's happening in South Carolina now?
here's a letter by the guy who was elected by the diocese...
If you do happen to find out, please let the rest of us know, too.
I'm sure Augustine the Aleut will know the exact number, but I think that only 1 or 2 bishop-elects have ever not received consents—and this was around the US Civil War. We are in uncharted territory.
The rumors (emphasis on the word "rumors") of what I am hearing is that there is some concern that this bishop-elect will try to take South Carolina out of TEC. I really don't know if there is anything to those rumors; they could be absolutely and totally false.
We are talking about South Carolina, here. It becomes very easy to assume the worse by those outside the state, whether or not it is really warranted. (Please note how I worded that last sentence.)
<tangent>
You think the Anglican Communion is having problems? Do a Google search on "confederate flag south carolina" to get a small taste of a really big controversy, at least from US eyes.
</tangent>
If the bishop-elect of South Carolina can quiet fears that he really isn't out to rip TEC apart, I suspect that he will receive his consents. From what I've seen, there really is no other reason to deny consents.
Remember that the abandonment charges against bishop of San Joaquin have been dropped, at least for now.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
That's what I'm hearing here anyhow.
[ 17. January 2007, 19:01: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
However, I'm not sure how you connect liturgical stupidity with whoring. I've seen many liturgical stupid moments done by people who really meant well, but really didn't have a clue about what they were borrowing or what it really meant or, on the flip side, those in the pews who didn't understand the liturgy because it was something different than they had experienced before.
I wouldn't connect all liturgical stupidity with whoring, but would defend the metaphor in this case because (1) the incident implied shame and regret for associating with the church that she had campaigned and been elected to lead; (2) it also implied that we may expect some radical changes in the near future; (3) the above being the case, perhaps by a process of elimination we must conclude that the motivation for it must have come from warm feelings for the Zeitgeist and a cheap desire to flatter those outside the church rather than in it.
As I said before, all this is hardly reassuring to those of us who have been told that having our first woman PB isn't really going to make that much of a disturbance. I suppose that the gesture is honest, because it certainly doesn't look politically astute from our POV.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
If anyone tears the Anglican Communion apart, it won't be Gene Robinson. He has at least expressed no such desire.
So if a bishop-elect or candidate is indeed "out to" tear whatever body apart, the situation is not at all comparable.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
So let me get this straight.
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
That's what I'm hearing here anyhow.
I really don't think those people that voted to call +Gene, and then gave consent, really believed the Anglican train would come off the tracks. I kept hearing analogies to female ordination. That is, female ordination is a sticking point for some, but not a deal breaker. Every person who is aware of the world knows that there has already been gay bishops in the Anglican communion and beyond. So why split up over this one?
(I would ask a rhetorical question here, but someone may not recognize it as such and think I was trying to drag a dead horse in here.)
The fact that you got a convoluted resolution from General Convention about electing and consenting to the election of those with whom others might have problems elsewhere in the Communion shows that there really is concern about the wider Anglican Communion in TEC.
The fact that the Diocese of California (really, San Francisco) didn't call the Very Rev. Robert Taylor to be its bishop is considered by many to be because the Diocese of California was aware of the issues. (I don't how true this really is, but that is the story accepted commonly in the Diocese of Olympia, where Taylor is Dean of our Cathedral.)
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't. And, how we were supposed to know this time it was such a deal breaker.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
You're right. Perhaps this did not happen. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
(It wouldn't be the first time that a couple of my friends have exaggerated.)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
First of all the feud at hand has much much more to it than the election of +Gene Robinson. But you're right, nonetheless, that the protests about being obliged to consent to the election of Gene Robinson when they're not obliged to consent to the fellow from South Carolina don't make a lot of sense to this foreigner.
I gather, btw, that the Schism has now been approved by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY
[ 17. January 2007, 21:33: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Sorry - screwed up the URL - that would be THIS Highest Authority.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
It seems that for many people these days, when it comes to TEC, it's raisin cakes all the way down....
(Not referring to you, Alogon. Your friends, maybe, though. )
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genevičve
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't.
What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would anyone expect ordained women to be the "deal breaker"? The two issues, though both controversial in many places, are utterly unrelated to each other.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Meanwhile, there are those that are still trying to figure out why +Gene is a deal breaker, whereas a female presbyter isn't.
What on earth has that got to do with anything? Why would anyone expect ordained women to be the "deal breaker"? The two issues, though both controversial in many places, are utterly unrelated to each other.
Admittedly they are unrelated now (kind of sort of...it's complicated), BUT
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Unless all you are worrying about is who they are having sex with, or want to have sex with, then there seems to be some correlation.
It's confusing to some of us that who you "lust" after is a first order issue...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Patalebon asks:
quote:
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Well...down in Dead Horses, you will find answers to this... basically, the first would be seen by some as a shouldn't be, and the second by some as a couldn't be. Admittedly, some may not see a difference there.
Earlier up this thread, a shipmate kindly thought that I would know about the instances where PECUSA (as it then was) withheld consent to the election of a bishop. There were three occasions, I believe, but the only specific one I can recall was the 19th century election of Bl. James de Koven, on account of his catholic tendencies.
In the US, there is no need to state a reason for withholding consent or, indeed, to have a specific reason at all (aside from conscience and decency-- such serious matters should never be whimsical or arbitrary). I recall reading in a history of PECUSA in North Carolina how, when a black bishop suffragan was being appointed after the Civil War for "coloured work," other southern dioceses were canvassed in advance to ensure that there would be no withholding consent.
Canadian canons limit the reasons for objection on the part of the bishops of a province-- generally, lacking the requisite age (30) or seniority (not a priest for at least 6 years), and some ecclesiastical provinces (Canada and Rupertsland, I believe) add ungodly living or having taught a doctrine not held by the Anglican Church of Canada. There is an appeal process in place, should this ever happen (it hasn't, yet, although I can think of a few instances where it would have been a good idea--to think that electoral synods are alone in possessing infallibility is ...cough... cough..).
US canons have a series of provisions to address a situation where consent is withheld, in order to provide for a bishop for a diocese in such a situation-- I think that this owes something to the Scottish Church's collegial approach to the episcopate, but I may be talking through my hat on this.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
How is the TEC electing someone who the rest of the communion believes shouldn't be a priest (+Robinson) different from electing a female bishop who again many people in the Anglican Communion believe shouldn't be a priest?
Because the reasons for believing they should not be a priest are different. Especially for the evangelicals. Insofar as it is evangelicals who are making the running in the protests then what they think is important.
The people who object to openly gay clergy object on moral grounds. They think it is a sin. They would think that a male priest living with his same-sex partner in an apparently sexual relationship would be sinning, in pretty much the same way as a male priest living in a sexual relationship with a woman he is not married to would be sinning.
But the business of ordaining women is one of church government. Quite different. And most of the evangelicals are in favour of women priests - or if they are against them then they are often against them on quite different grounds that aren't communion-breaking.
Also, on purely churchmanship party grounds, objections are split:
- Those Anglicans who don't mind gay male priests but object to women priests (and there are some) tend to be in the "liberal catholic" camp, who have been in the ascendency in all the English-speaking provinces for decades now (unless you count Sydney as separate from the rest of Australia). As such they are on the defensive because they have most to lose - in a cynical political sense - from a shift in the balance of power between churchmanships or betwen provinces. So they will have an interest in defering the question, doing things quitely and under the table.
- Anglicans who are in favour of ordaining women but opposed to appointing gay men to office in the church, are often from the "charismatic evangelical" side of things, which is perhaps the fastest-growing slice of Anglicanism (Alpha and all that), prominent in England and dominant in parts of Africa, but as far as I can tell thin on the ground in the USA. It thinks of itself as the coming thing, and is flexing its muscles. So they are likely to be tempted to force the issue because they think they can win.
quote:
Unless all you are worrying about is who they are having sex with, or want to have sex with, then there seems to be some correlation.
Well that is all they are worrying about, as far as homosexuality is concerning them.
quote:
It's confusing to some of us that who you "lust" after is a first order issue...
It isn't. Appointing a man as a bishop when he is widely thought to be living in open sin is. At least for many conservative evangelicals.
Filling out our grid of Anglicanisms (with a cynical tongue in my cheek):
- the hardline Anglo Catholics are in theory against both homosexuality and women priests. But they can get over the homosexual priests with a "don't ask, don't tell" position, because for them, even if they think it is a sin, the worthiness of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments. Also, some of their best friends are gay. But women bishops are a communion-breaking issue for them because they call into question the value of ordinations (which they will deny is a "theory of taint") and they believe that bishops in the tactile Apostolic Succession are neccessary for us to claim to be the true Church. Such people are probably more significant in England than other parts of the Anglican community, but they do get everywhere. But they are rarely a majority and so tend to have few bishops. So they feel under-represented in Anglican diplomacy. So they have an interest in trying to connect homosexuality with women's ordination in our minds so that they can attempt to recruit conservative evangelicals into their campaign for separate provinces.
- Hardline Reformed conservative evangelicals are also against both, but for them the moral issues (i.e. homosexuality) are more important. Women priests don't bother them as long as they don't have to have one in a "headship" role in their own parish. The essence of the church is not in bishops but in the gathered congregation. They've spent four hundred years working around catholic-minded bishops who they often see as barely-Christian busy-bodies more interested in church politics than in saving souls. They can ignore women bishops just as easily as they can ignore men bishops. So in practice theologically conservative evangelicals are likely to make more fuss about homosexual priests, because it seems more important to them. As well as reinforcing their long-held notion that the church in general is deeply corrupt and worldly. This is a dominant churchmanship in most of the smaller Anglican provinces, especially in Roman Catholic countries with a small Protestant minority, or missionary churches in mostly non-Christian countries in the Middle East and Asia. So they tend to have small provinces and are over-represented at conferences!
- the "open" evangelicals arestrongly in favour of women priests, but in practice are also "don't ask, don't tell" about gay priests. That might be because a lot of the ministers are in fact more liberal theologically than their congregations and don't want to stir up questions to which they fear the answers. Also they feel emotionally vulnerable to accusations of being liberal from their left. And some of them might will be very wary of linking the two issues, because they want to keep and many charimatic and conservative evangelicals on their side as possible. So their interests lie in keeping quiet about the whole thing and hoping it will go away.
(And nobody mention the Fisherfolk...)
[ 18. January 2007, 01:53: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
And one more time again... Given what you are saying, what is happening with the bishop-elect of South Carolina?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But then there are high-profile occasions like the enthronement of Katharine Schori, which are spectacularly revisionist and creative. Head in sand, I didn't pay enough attention to the thread about this occasion in Ecclesiantics, but didn't it include e.g. an episode of splashing ashes on the altar in penitence for the church's past misdeeds?
No, it didn't. You can watch both investiture services on the National Cathedral website. The liturgies weren't even "spectacularly revisionist", just tricked out with waving banners and liturgical dancers and smudging and whatnot. Somewhat tedious and silly, in my view, but nothing shocking.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Ken - I actually understand personally.
What you do have is many people who don't.
One has to realize that the TEC is made up of a majority of "converts".
They simply don't have a global understanding of church, but a local one. So when you try to put things in a global perspective, they just shake their head and ask why people in a far place would care and if we have already done ground breaking things why is this different?
I'm not sure that there is anything that the ABC can do to change that kind of perspective. How do you teach someone to have a global perspective, and add to that an American citizen with all that entails.
America is not noted for looking beyond itself.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
quote:
quote:
ECUSA couldn't do anything about giving consent for the bishop they were told would tear the Anglican Communion apart, but they seem to be withholding consent for a bishop who might tear ECUSA apart? (even if it is by staying with the rest of the Anglican communion)
Ok, one more time, ECUSA--as in the gathered House of Bishops, General Convention (e.g.,ratifying ++Katharine), Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees--do consent or withhold consent to an election. ++Frank did not have that power.
And one more time again... Given what you are saying, what is happening with the bishop-elect of South Carolina?
Well the consecration has been postponed for one thing.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Quite.
It's interesting seeing the contrasts between the two cases...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, here's my Google search on "ashes altar investiture Schori".
44 hits, and nary an "altar splashing" to be found. Can someone document this alleged "incident"?
I bet someone is confusing the smudging with spreading ashes.....
It seems that for many people these days, when it comes to TEC, it's raisin cakes all the way down....
(Not referring to you, Alogon. Your friends, maybe, though. )
And it's this kind of gossip (which, incidently, is condemned by Scripture) that makes it hard to take seriously anything the angry Anglican right says. I have read many out-of-context quotes, false witness accounts about what people have said and did and over-the-top language, that when you go to the source doesn't resemble that is being spread around. I feel like I have to get the hip boots on when I read it.
It even turns off some of my friends who are sympathetic to their beliefs and concerns.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Earlier up this thread, a shipmate kindly thought that I would know about the instances where PECUSA (as it then was) withheld consent to the election of a bishop. There were three occasions, I believe, but the only specific one I can recall was the 19th century election of Bl. James de Koven, on account of his catholic tendencies.
It happened twice to de Koven, once in 1874 and again in 1875 for bishoprics in Wisconsin and Illinois, respectively. Cf. here.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Sorry for the double-post. This link to the Episcopal News Service about the election of Jack Iker to Ft. Worth (and how contentious it was) closes with the assertion that De Koven was the only one. Of course, he was disqualified for views rather than for an invalid process.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
Just curious:
I'm an Episcopalian and I don't know what you're all talking about re: raisin cakes. Seriously. I've never seen them in more than 12 years of potluck, coffee hour, and other social functions. I've never seen them at a worship service, either.
Could someone please enlighten?
[ 18. January 2007, 15:14: Message edited by: mgeorge ]
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
