|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Consecration Will Include Objections
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Mark the Punk - Agent of Grace. Beautiful. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
You mean the bishops actually had to touch him? A g...g...gay person? Whatever next? Will they have to touch the poor, the homeless, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Oh, bugger off! I would be more an act of Christian Charity™ to wish Fr. Fox the Peace during the Eucharist. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
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 MarkthePunk:
Anybody know who Earl Fox is? I think only two objections were planned. Was his *ahem* unplanned?
The BCP does not say to limit objections to those planned in advance. Actually, it says very little in this area.
I hope you are keeping score on who is being inclusive of whom. (Remember that ++Frank had to pull out of a consecration in a reactionary diocese.)
--------------------
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
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Oh, bugger off! I would be more an act of Christian Charity™ to wish Fr. Fox the Peace during the Eucharist.
On that, we agree.
(And on "unplanned," I meant unplanned by conservatives, which I suspect (and hope) it was.)
[ 03. November 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: MarkthePunk ]
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I hope you are keeping score on who is being inclusive of whom. (Remember that ++Frank had to pull out of a consecration in a reactionary diocese.)
That would be mine. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I also don't understand why, in the words of the statement, "it will not be possible for Gene Robinson's ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion". From the point of view of those who claim to be "mainstream Anglicans", surely any possible objection to receiving his ministry is covered by Article XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments"?
It's not to do with any sort of theology of 'taint' or anything like that, but the fact that the majority of Anglicans don't believe Robinson should have been consecrated....
Now would those who have said ad nauseam on SoF that they didn't think the Anglican Communion would break up over this rethink their position? The fact is that a huge number of Anglicans now don't and can't accept ECUSA as being part of the same Church any more....
The definition of being in the Anglican Communion is being in communion with the See of Canterbury. The ECUSA is still in communion with ++Rowan. The ECUSA is still Anglican. QED.
What other dioceses and provinces do is up to them, because there is no central authority. There are already those that are in communion with Canterbury that don't accept some that have been ordained in the ECUSA.
As I look out my window this morning, the sun rose in the East.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Assuming they are bing consistent, perhaps they aren't saying "Gene is not a real bishop" so much as "we don't want to associate with the kind of people who want him as their bishop".
He is invalidated from being a real bishop for most of the Provinces because he does not meet their criteria for the selection of a bishop. This is a fundamental break. His consecration is considered utterly wrong, and inevitably if they don't consider him a real bishop then they won't recognise his sacramental acts, in the same way they wouldn't necessarily be able to fully recognise the sacramental acts of another church they are not in communion with. Don't forget that women bishops are not able to function episcopally in the Church of England. Those ordained by women bishops elsewhere are also not recognised in the Church of England and many other provinces. So we had impaired communion before, and now we have broken communion also.
If their objection is to his homosexuality, then they should look to themselves and their own bishops. There have been, and no doubt still are, gay bishops in the C of E, in Canada, and I dare say in a whole bunch of other places and no one has claimed they are not "real" bishops, whose (for example) ordinations are not valid. Of course, most of them were not known to be gay -- but in this paradigm, being gay is an absolute. And, BTW, if being gay means a consecrated person isn't really what s/he thinks s/he is, then why doesn't adultery, or fornication or the sins listed by Paul in the same lists -- or, for that matter, lack of faith (no-one has yet claimed that Spong was not a valid bishop, they content themselves with calling him a heretic or questioning his motives).
If the objection is that he is acting sinfully, then there are no valid bishops or priests or confirmed persons, and we might as well give up the game and walk away.
I saw one African archbishop saying that this demonstrated that ECUSA was possessed by the Spirit of Satan -- demonstrating clearly that he, at least, has gone so far over the top that he can safely be disregarded, except as an object of prayer.
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).
I saw bishops questioning Robinson's consecration who have for decades ignored the grotesque promiscuity that has made AIDS the killer it is in East Africa -- but then, they're straight, not gay, so maybe it's not really a sin, despite what the gospels say.
Now, don't get me started on the problems I have with the other side in this discussion. The one thing they seem to share is that they cannot accept that those with whom they disagree may also be seeking to do God's will. Christian charity? Ha!
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
The definition of being in the Anglican Communion is being in communion with the See of Canterbury. The ECUSA is still in communion with ++Rowan. The ECUSA is still Anglican. QED.
What other dioceses and provinces do is up to them, because there is no central authority. There are already those that are in communion with Canterbury that don't accept some that have been ordained in the ECUSA.
As I look out my window this morning, the sun rose in the East.
Yes that's a particularly typical ECUSA response. As long as we're in communion with Canterbury we don't give a damn what the other dioceses and provinces do. Let me just remind you that the Anglican Communion's bonds of affections are not just vertical through the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury but are horizontal as well, among the provinces.
It is not too hard to imagine a scenario in the near future, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury could be forced to make a choice between recognising ECUSA and perhaps Canada over against the majority of the third world provinces. What does he do in that situation? It will be a tragedy whichever way it goes, but the sun is still going to rise and still going to set.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Griswold and Gene R being "gracious" is a crock. Having his partner participate in the service, including handing him his mitre is a bit in-your-face, is it not?
No. The family of +Vincent participated when he was consecrated the Bishop of Olympia. His daughter even proved she can't sing--during the Communion of the People. (If I remember correctly, she attempted to sing "Amazing Grace.") That was in your face!
(Sidenote: At the time, the place where +Vincent was consecrated was still the hockey rink for the Seattle Thunderbirds. So, what was so unusual for consecrating +Gene in a rink?)
quote:
GR's gracious words are just that -- words.
Mr. Punk, I'm amazed you forgot what is said in the Holy Bible™ about the power of the words we say. So, saying they were "only words" denies the authority of Scripture.
At least ++Frank has shown graciousness towards those who disagree through all of this. Somewhere I get the feeling that ++Frank understands that Jesus Christ is life; all the rest are just details.
quote:
As for those who are getting their robes wrinkled about someone questioning whether the ECUSA is Christian, may I ask if they are upset by being led by those who do not hold to the basics of the faith, such as the atonement and the resurrection, such as Spong et al. If the ECUSA is Christian, it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times.
I'll take "it sure as heck has a funny way of showing it at times" as a compliment. Why, we have even been known to take in ex-fundamentalists, Roman Catholics, former members of the Disciples of Christ, and even an atheist or two. Think of it as the reverse of an occasional military maxim of "kill everyone and let God sort it out." We take everyone, and let God shower grace upon them.
I'll also agree that the reactionaries appear to me to be a bit confused in walking out over +Gene when there are matters that do have more importance. Where were their priorities? I think there was something said about straining at gnats that applies here.
quote:
Clearly, there are a lot of Christians in the ECUSA. But there are a lot of Christians in the Rotary Club, too.
If we are to take C.S. Lewis's example from The Last Battle as correct, we might be amazed with whom we will be spending eternity. We might find that +Gene will lay down with Fr. Fox!
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).
It's just a tragedy this thread isn't in hell, already. What do you mean about the Archbishop of Kenya? Do you even know who the current Archbishop of Kenya is? I have also heard rumours about the previous Archbishop of Kenya, but none of them proven. I think allegations like this are pretty serious. So you'd better put up or shut up.
quote:
I saw bishops questioning Robinson's consecration who have for decades ignored the grotesque promiscuity that has made AIDS the killer it is in East Africa -- but then, they're straight, not gay, so maybe it's not really a sin, despite what the gospels say.
Names please, or this is again unfair. Back in the late 1980s and perhaps into the 1990s, there was indeed a huge amount of denial in the African church, and in African society in general about AIDS. It was a huge shock, but a great deal of AIDS work is now being led by Anglicans, especially in Uganda.
quote:
Now, don't get me started on the problems I have with the other side in this discussion. The one thing they seem to share is that they cannot accept that those with whom they disagree may also be seeking to do God's will. Christian charity? Ha!
John Holding
You're absolutely oozing with Christian charity, aren't you?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
If we are to take C.S. Lewis's example from The Last Battle as correct, we might be amazed with whom we will be spending eternity. We might find that +Gene will lay down with Fr. Fox!
That would be interesting to see. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(And I appreciate your gracious response to my ornery post.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
To The Bede's American Successor,
Jugular has been gracious enough to open a thread in Hell on the very points you quote from Mark the Punk. I would be interested to see your contribution there.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
Yes that's a particularly typical ECUSA response. As long as we're in communion with Canterbury we don't give a damn what the other dioceses and provinces do. Let me just remind you that the Anglican Communion's bonds of affections are not just vertical through the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury but are horizontal as well, among the provinces.
Yes, I assume the Anglican Church in Kenya will still take money donated through Episcopal Relief and Development.
To respond to you adequately, I would need to discuss the ordination of women (a practice from the early church) and the acceptance of those other than heterosexual in the church (which did happen in some places). Of course, to do so would immediately cross into Dead Horse territory.
May I suggest you loosen up and read this?
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).
Which activities would they be then?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Andrew Carey wrote:
quote:
It's not to do with any sort of theology of 'taint' or anything like that, but the fact that the majority of Anglicans don't believe Robinson should have been consecrated. Archbishop Rowan has pointed out, Gene Robinson could not have been consecrated in nearly all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. They believe it means ECUSA, Robinson and the participating bishops have acted outside the Anglican tradition and therefore they don't recognise the validity of the consecration.
Thanks for this, Andrew, but I'm still confused as to why a belief that Canon Robinson should not have been consecrated (a perfectly reasonable view to hold) implies a belief that his consecration, once it has taken place, is not valid.
I don't see why disapproval(however great)of the man and/or his lifestyle, and a belief (however strongly held) that he is utterly unfit to be a Bishop, has anything to do with whether his orders are valid or not. After all, the Borgia Pope could ordain priests every bit as validly - no more, no less - than the saintliest bishop who ever lived.
So I'd appreciate further elucidation. Is this a Catholic/Evangelical thing?
Again, thanks. I'm grateful you took the time to write.
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Alwyn: I wonder what Shipmates in ECUSA think about this response?
That it is God's place to judge if we are living up to the obligations of being a Christian or not. That goes without saying though I guess. Mostly I would say that it's sad to see the recriminations flying around. A lot of people are really hurting over this. I suppose I remain the hopeless pollyanna that believes somehow a way can still be found to move forward that keeps us as a family.
I've checked a few news sites this morning and it actually looks like most of the African primates are specifically severing or loosening ties with the Diocese of New Hampshire. The strongest words I've seen so far have actually come from Reform in the U.K.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
To The Bede's American Successor,
Jugular has been gracious enough to open a thread in Hell on the very points you quote from Mark the Punk. I would be interested to see your contribution there.
My pain medication is working today, so I might not be as much fun as I was over the weekend. Besides, there is a bigger fish to fry on this thread.
(It just so happens it was the thread in Hell that moved me back over here. This proves that I don't respond to every thread out there.)
In a strange way I think I understand Mr. Punk. I can be a bit provacative myself at times. I also note that he can take a joke (as well as make them).
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I saw that the arhcbishop in Kenya had objected -- when he himself is in violation of so many basic Christian standards that his standing must be questioned. (But, notably, none of the other African bishops have even noticed, much less critcized his activities, so I guess we can conclude that only sex matters when it comes to sin).
Which activities would they be then?
These would accepting as a gift from the goverment a farm whose previous owner was evicted without compenstation for being white, as part of the government's land reform campaign, and for tben evicting the (black) african workers who lived and worked on the farm and installing his son as the new owner-operator.
I leave out his slavish support for President Mugabe, and his silence in the face of the obvious injustices being perpetrated in Kenya under the present regime.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
These would accepting as a gift from the goverment a farm whose previous owner was evicted without compenstation for being white, as part of the government's land reform campaign, and for tben evicting the (black) african workers who lived and worked on the farm and installing his son as the new owner-operator.
I leave out his slavish support for President Mugabe, and his silence in the face of the obvious injustices being perpetrated in Kenya under the present regime.
John Holding
It's a big continent isn't it? Easy to get Zimbabwe and Kenya mixed up.
Please tell me that you're trying to wind us up?
[ 03. November 2003, 15:45: Message edited by: Andrew Carey ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
John Holding: watch it with the allegations. If you cannot produce evidence to support your claims, zip it.
Erin
Community Editor
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Posted by Andrew Carey quote:
quote:
Now, don't get me started on the problems I have with the other side in this discussion. The one thing they seem to share is that they cannot accept that those with whom they disagree may also be seeking to do God's will. Christian charity? Ha!
John Holding
You're absolutely oozing with Christian charity, aren't you?
Yeah. AS other people have said, referring to both sides, the advocates are the major problem in my coming to an agreement with the positions they espouse.
I have already clarified my remarks about the Archbishop in Kenya. AS as for the church leaders in East African, they may (now) by gfighting AIDS, after decades of ignoring it, but are they suddenly preaching agasint the promisuous behaviour that caused the epidemic in the first place?
Let me make clear, which perhaps I did not earlier, that in my criticisms of a number of bishops who happen to be African (in the examples I have used), I did not mean to suggest that other bishops in all countries have not also equally excused promiscuity and ignored various sins. I meant only to demonstrate that many (all?) bishops, not just gay bishops, are sinners and deserve whatever is being handed out to the Bishop of New Hampshire.
BTW, you have not indicated why gayness invalidates orders when other sins do not, and about the validity of the episcopal actions of other gay priests and bishops if Robinson is not validly a bishop.
John Holding
[Edited UBB for quote and attribution]
[ 03. November 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
John Holding: watch it with the allegations. If you cannot produce evidence to support your claims, zip it.
Erin
Community Editor
Ye gods, give me a chance to read the responses and type an answer. I'm not doing this at home.
And I am sorry -- I did indeed make a mistake and confused Kenya and Zimbabwe.
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
most of the African primates are specifically severing or loosening ties with the Diocese of New Hampshire.
I imagine the average African Christian is slightly more likely to know where New Hampshire is than the average American Christian is likely to know where, say, Machakos is. But only slightly more likely.
So the earth is not yet shaking.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And I am sorry -- I did indeed make a mistake and confused Kenya and Zimbabwe.
Bloody Mexicans.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I wonder what Shipmates in ECUSA think about this response?
If you are a Shipmate in ECUSA, and pro +Gene, do you have any suggestions for fellow Anglicans about how we should respond to statements like Andrew's?
Like many others, I want to encourage mutual understanding, not separation. I hope that Anglicans in other countries who support +Gene, will show that this is not a dispute between 'ECUSA and the rest of the Anglican Communion'.
A.
CofE, and pro +Gene
What do we think? Well, I have the hubris to believe that I am still a Christian (I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord ... all that stuff in the Creeds), that I am trying to live a Christian life and work on turning the other cheek, loving my enemies and blessing those who curse me. Bless you, Andrew.
And I still have the hubris to believe that my parish and the entire ECUSA is part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...
And that we went on trying to be the people of God in Gaithersburg yesterday. The Word of God was preached, the Eucharist was celebrated, five people (one adult, two teens and two babies) were baptized into Christ's Body, the Church. Kids attended Sunday School and took part in a mini-walk to help the homeless after each service.
Likewise, all over the ECUSA yesterday, much the same sort of thing went on. Worship happened, communion happened, and by God's boundless grace, the Body of Christ was recreated once again around countless altars.
By the grace of God, the church will get through this if we focus on what is important ... being the Body of Christ in a broken world ... and if we can keep the discourse civil and really listen to each other
and love each other as ourselves ...
And as my good buddy St. Paul would remind us, "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.' (i Cor. 12:21)
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irreverentkit:
What do we think? Well, I have the hubris to believe that I am still a Christian (I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord ... all that stuff in the Creeds), that I am trying to live a Christian life and work on turning the other cheek, loving my enemies and blessing those who curse me. Bless you, Andrew.
So I'm supposed to have cursed you. Now that's a new definition of curse.
quote:
By the grace of God, the church will get through this if we focus on what is important ... being the Body of Christ in a broken world ... and if we can keep the discourse civil and really listen to each other
and love each other as ourselves ...
And as my good buddy St. Paul would remind us, "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.' (i Cor. 12:21)
And that's the impression that a huge number of us have about what ECUSA has just done -- said to us that 'I have no need of you'. From Lambeth 1998 through successive Primates Meetings and ACC meetings, ECUSA has had sufficient warning (direct and indirect) that taking such steps would impair or break the Anglican Communion. ECUSA walked into this with eyes wide open, refusing to believe the clear statements, so pleae don't act all aggrieved and self-righteous now. And don't put the breaking of communion on anyone else. ECUSA has judged this to be a justice issue that it is worth creating division over -- at least admit it and take some pride in your principles.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Perhaps those who are getting vocal (again) about +Gene Robinson might care to take a look in Hell at 'Today I shall have impaired communion with...', (a matter already alluded to by John Holding) then report back on how they justify their priorities.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
A news story about The Archbishop of Zimbabwe's behavior is here .
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
I should probably find a better place to ask this question . . . God forgive me for asking this in Hell, but Andrew said something that I found was succinct enough for me to respond. (Hellhosts, please move this if it belongs someplace else)
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
ECUSA has judged this to be a justice issue that it is worth creating division over.
Does this mean that the consecration of GR is considered heresy?
As one who is quite ignorant of the politics of religion I'm attempting to understand both sides of this issue. Having very limited access to resources for references, I thought maybe the thought-provoking group here at the ship would be an interesting place to start my schooling.
eeG
[ 03. November 2003, 17:23: Message edited by: eeGAD ]
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Psst, eeGAD, you're in Purgatory currently...
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Psst, eeGAD, you're in Purgatory currently...
yeah, yeah, yeah . . . soon as I was outta time to edit the blasted thing I realized I had mis-spoken.
I knew it wouldn't be long before you or Pants called me on this one. damn.
mea culpa Oh Great Sarkycow.
Now what about my question . . . .
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
quote:
They believe it means ECUSA, Robinson and the participating bishops have acted outside the Anglican tradition and therefore they don't recognise the validity of the consecration. It is regarded as a step so serious that communion is broken.
If they don't recognise the validity of the consecration they are heretics - Donatists to be precise. I don't imagine that any of the above is going to make the argument go away. Luther's objection to the Papacy didn't include the argument that Fr. Borgia wasn't really a Bishop. But if you are correct in your assessment of the traditionalist position (and you are the expert)then it is another example of the traditionalists abandoning Anglicanism for sectarianism in the cause of gay bashing.
If they think that ECUSA were wrong to consecrate +Gene, well that's a different matter. I am not naive about the strength of feeling about the consecration in some circles (you'd have to have come from a different planet wouldn't you) but if this is about the validity of +Gene's orders, as opposed the propriety of ordaining him then I suggest that the conservatives stop pretending to be the defenders of Christian orthodoxy unless St Augustine got it wrong and Donatus was right. +Gene is a validly consecrated bishop as much as ++ Carey was. He may be a very bad bishop, but unless you overturn 1600 or so years of Christian history (why does that argument sound familiar?) he is a bishop, nonetheless.
--------------------
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
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
And that's the impression that a huge number of us have about what ECUSA has just done -- said to us that 'I have no need of you'. From Lambeth 1998 through successive Primates Meetings and ACC meetings, ECUSA has had sufficient warning (direct and indirect) that taking such steps would impair or break the Anglican Communion. ECUSA walked into this with eyes wide open, refusing to believe the clear statements, so pleae don't act all aggrieved and self-righteous now. And don't put the breaking of communion on anyone else. ECUSA has judged this to be a justice issue that it is worth creating division over -- at least admit it and take some pride in your principles.
I'm still here, I'm still at the table, and I'm willing to talk. (and let me point out that although I support NH and +Gene, I had NO direct involvement in this ... I was not a delegate at General Convention ... I am a bystander and an observer as much as you or anyone else in ECUSA.)
Do you want division? You can divide. Or do you want to stay in communion and hang in there and duke it out with the rest of the church? Then stay and duke it out. As I said before, I don't seek or desire any divison. We do not have to divide. We can get through this if folks are willing to persevere.
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I shouldn't have been, but I was astounded by this comment (from the CNN report): quote:
The American Anglican Council issued a strong statement shortly after the consecration asking for people to redirect their financial giving "to ministries or organizations that call Jesus Lord".
Consecrating +Robinson may have been arrogant, insular, and lacking in care for the rest of the Anglican Communion (not saying it was, BTW, just that I can understand thise objections). But to say that it denies the Lordship of Jesus seems to me to straining language to breaking point, so that words no longer mean what they always used to mean.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Do you want division? You can divide. Or do you want to stay in communion and hang in there and duke it out with the rest of the church? Then stay and duke it out. As I said before, I don't seek or desire any divison. We do not have to divide. We can get through this if folks are willing to persevere.
I'm afraid that I find this line of argument naive and inadequate. It's like a married man, who's been cheating on his wife, complaining vociferously when the wife finally packs her bags and walks. "But honey," he says, " how could you possibly destroy our marriage like this?"
The short answer is that the marriage was broken and destroyed a lot earlier by the adulterous and unfaithful behaviour. The wife who leaves is simply acknowledging the fact that her marriage no longer exists.
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
Is the problem with the consecration of Canon Robinson one of sexuality or ecclesiology or cannot the two be divided?
I have no problems with his sexuality, but am uneasy with ECUSA's seeming unwillingness (from my perspective) to listen to other parts of the Anglican body.
This is may be a false perception - on my part - but it is one, I think, shared by a number of other Anglicans.
I want to re-iterate, I am liberal on issues of sexuality, but cautious about breaking bonds of fellowship. It is not enough for supporters of Bishop Robinson to say that it is conservatives who are breaking communion. The consecration itself may precipitate such a fracture.
I am still hopeful that a way made be found out of this mire, and supportive of Rowan Cantuar's attempts to do it.
The fact that we are in this mess seems proof that we have forgotten (liberals, conservatives and catholics) about issues which surround the nature of Church.
Blessings
Ebor
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Do you want division? You can divide. Or do you want to stay in communion and hang in there and duke it out with the rest of the church? Then stay and duke it out. As I said before, I don't seek or desire any divison. We do not have to divide. We can get through this if folks are willing to persevere.
I'm afraid that I find this line of argument naive and inadequate. It's like a married man, who's been cheating on his wife, complaining vociferously when the wife finally packs her bags and walks. "But honey," he says, " how could you possibly destroy our marriage like this?"
The short answer is that the marriage was broken and destroyed a lot earlier by the adulterous and unfaithful behaviour. The wife who leaves is simply acknowledging the fact that her marriage no longer exists.
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.
Neil
So your point is that Christians who hold to a conservative view on this issue are the victims of repeated and totally unjustified abuse by ECUSA and other liberals?
TBH, I think you should have a ickle thunk about the tremendous damage that the anti-gay lobby has perpetrated against other Christains on the basis of their sexuality.
So, hey. Like, wow. We have an openly gay bishop. How awful!! It's the end of the world etc etc etc etc. You honestly think +Gene is the first gay bishop?
I would say more if this wasn't in Purg. But, if you haven't got the point by now, I think your analogy is totally and completely bogus.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.
Neil
Appeal to Host
To respond adequately to this requires entering Dead Horse territory, which isn't even allowed in Hell. While I know some of my posts have taken the boat in close to the shoals, I have at least tried to keep from crossing that line. When I see something like this, I feel like I am fighting with both hands tied behind my back, since someone was allowed to call certain groups in the ECUSA "faithless and apostate" and "responsible for the breach of communion."
End Appeal
I guess all I can say is that:
- The ECUSA has always been a leader in social ministries from the late 1800s in the US. There have been several moves taken over this period that have been a bit ahead of the curve.
- Is it better to be in communion with those that deny the ministries of all of God's people, or to respect the dignity of all human beings?
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
I have no problems with his sexuality, but am uneasy with ECUSA's seeming unwillingness (from my perspective) to listen to other parts of the Anglican body.
This is may be a false perception - on my part - but it is one, I think, shared by a number of other Anglicans.
I want to re-iterate, I am liberal on issues of sexuality, but cautious about breaking bonds of fellowship. It is not enough for supporters of Bishop Robinson to say that it is conservatives who are breaking communion. The consecration itself may precipitate such a fracture.
The post immediately preceding yours is a fantastic illustration of why the ECUSA doesn't appear to give two shits about what the rest of the Anglican Communion thinks. If this is what passes for fellowship in the rest of the Anglican Communion:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I choose the marriage analogy deliberately, since in the OT faithless and apostate Israel is often called adulterous. Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.
the rest of the Anglican Communion is cordially invited to fuck off as far away from the United States as they can get. Good riddance.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Appeal to Host
To respond adequately to this requires entering Dead Horse territory, which isn't even allowed in Hell.
Just to clarify. There is nothing to say that mentioning a subject covered by another active thread isn't permitted. What we do ask is that people restrain from entire posts, or worse still several posts in response to each other, that covers a subject under discussion on another thread. This is inorder to allow the thread to continue without being distracted down a tangent (naturally, if there is no active thread on the subject of the tangent feel free to start one). Threads in Dead Horses are active threads, it's just that they are subjects that keep recurring and have no obvious conclusion.
We have no intention to force people to express their arguments with arms tied. We also don't want to see one thread swamped by discussions that are tangential.
Alan
Purgatory host
[can't even get my own UBB right!]
[ 03. November 2003, 21:16: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
I have no problems with his sexuality, but am uneasy with ECUSA's seeming unwillingness (from my perspective) to listen to other parts of the Anglican body.
We don't listen?
Let's say for a moment the ECUSA is wrong with +Gene. What is the definition of true religion in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures? Isn't there something about caring for the poor, widowed, and orphaned?
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
We don't listen?
Let's say for a moment the ECUSA is wrong with +Gene. What is the definition of true religion in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures? Isn't there something about caring for the poor, widowed, and orphaned?
Yes and the African churches know they will get less help from the American church for the stand they are taking and are prepared to do without for their principles. That is the reality.
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 03. November 2003, 21:55: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Stick to writing about the Church of England, Andrew, and quit pretending you know anything about the ECUSA. Our diocese (one of many) is quite illegally diverting its national church contribution to "conservative" organizations, including churches in Africa whom you fear are going to suffer. They are NOT going to suffer. The ECUSA might, though.
So quit bellyaching about the poor benighted African church. There are plenty of raving conservative lunatics in the ECUSA who will make sure they are heartily rewarded for their bigotry.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Stick to writing about the Church of England, Andrew, and quit pretending you know anything about the ECUSA. Our diocese (one of many) is quite illegally diverting its national church contribution to "conservative" organizations, including churches in Africa whom you fear are going to suffer. They are NOT going to suffer. The ECUSA might, though.
So quit bellyaching about the poor benighted African church. There are plenty of raving conservative lunatics in the ECUSA who will make sure they are heartily rewarded for their bigotry.
I can only say that I applaud your diocese - Bishop Jecko has my respect.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
I'm reliably informed by you, no less, in another thread that 'knuckle-dragging redneck' is a racist term. I didn't think that was allowed on Ship of Fools.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Host
Andrew Carey, if you want to take issue with Erin as a shipmate, take the matter to Hell. If you want to take issue with Erin as an administrator, take the matter to the Styx. Do not argue the matter here in Purgatory.
/Host
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Host
Andrew Carey, if you want to take issue with Erin as a shipmate, take the matter to Hell. If you want to take issue with Erin as an administrator, take the matter to the Styx. Do not argue the matter here in Purgatory.
/Host
My apologies to Tortuf and to Erin. It's late and I'm still working and I shouldn't be distracting myself here at the moment.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
