|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Consecration Will Include Objections
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Thank you.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Way to ignore my point, Andrew. And please quote me the rule that says redneck is out of bounds.
[oops crosspost, sorry Tortuf]
[ 03. November 2003, 22:19: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Andrew,
In fairness, I think it was I who noted that, as Erin had called her own bishop a knuckle-dragging redneck, that what she'd said about the African bishops was not racist, but rather in keeping with this sort of fair comment. I did not mean to say that redneck was racist. It is emphatically not, and I did not say it was.
Redneck is an affectionate/insulting term for southern whites (though race isn't really involved. It originated with the red necks from sunburn hatless farming gave poor southern farmers. In the US, redneckism is tradtionally associated with, well ... unenlightened views on politics, race relations, etcetera.
Calling someone redneck is no more racist than calling someone a "visigoth" would be. It once denoted a group of people, which it still does, but is now more associated with the supposedly unenlightened views traditionally associated with poor southern farmers.
I do think it should be thought-provoking the company the anti-Robinson movement is keeping. I think many foreign bishops would be shocked at the anti-progressive views that characterizes their bedfellows here (and I don't just mean creationism, though I find that view more dangerous than racism).
[ 03. November 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by FS: Those who have pushed ECUSA into the present developments are responsible for the breach of communion.
Who are those people? People for recognizing Gays? Ordaining women? People who have left the church or people who remain and are complacent? People who take a literal view of the Bible? People who take an interpretive view of the Bible? People who don't think about the Bible? People who have tolerated watered down theological positions? People who never think about theology?
Is it possible that whatever position the church is in now, we've all played a part?
I wonder.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
If us liberals can put up with more than one homophobic Bishop can't you put up with a gay one?
Honestly, it's not so much to ask is it?
Not to mention that the female bishops from North America constitute just as big a break with history, and just as radical a re-reading of Scripture.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
If us liberals can put up with more than one homophobic Bishop can't you put up with a gay one?
Honestly, it's not so much to ask is it?
Not to mention that the female bishops from North America constitute just as big a break with history, and just as radical a re-reading of Scripture.
At the risk of Dead Horse material, actually the ordination of women to the three historic orders is a return to the practice of the early church (first 300-500 years, more or less). However you read Scripture on this one, early Tradition sides with the ECUSA.
--------------------
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
Well, Alt Wally, at the big Plano meeting, conservatives publicly repented of their role in the ECUSA reaching its present state. So even conservatives acknowledge that it's not all the Liberals fault.
HT, without boring people with the details and beating a dead horse, this is a significently bigger break with scripture.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
HT, without boring people with the details and beating a dead horse, this is a significently bigger break with scripture.
In your opinion.
--------------------
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
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
Some of us don't believe that the consecration of women as bishops was a radical re-reading of Scripture.
Ebor
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Fair enough - there is a big debate on how to interpret scripture in both these areas. Which is why I found MtP's bland assertion fatuous.
--------------------
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
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I really can't help but be amused at the fact the very same arguments against consecrating Robinson - break with traditional teaching, unilateralism, not listening, it'll create peopl ewho aren't really ordained to that office, it's not scriptural and it's just plain wrong - were all used some 10 years.
A friend of mine was sitting at General Synod once, doing some administrative role.
In front of her was a bald man with glasses who, at that meeting, presided over a substantial change to the understanding of the orders of the Church of England, a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
MtP:
Don't think we haven't noticed that you haven't answered Erin's question.
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
At the risk of Dead Horse material, actually the ordination of women to the three historic orders is a return to the practice of the early church (first 300-500 years, more or less). However you read Scripture on this one, early Tradition sides with the ECUSA.
Even at the risk of extending the tangent, I just couldn't let this pass in a serious discusssion.
FWIW, I haven't encountered a single argument questioning GR's consecration on the grounds of it being "invalid", or because it might affect the validity of those he will ordain - it's just not an issue of Catholic order in that sense at all. He's a real live bishop, who can make real live priests and deacons, and bless oils, and everything. The decision to consecrate him was based on his perceived qualities and defended in on the grounds of justice. Everyone with a Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Order would be pretty much obliged to accept that, if any ECUSA bishop is a real bishop, then +Gene is one. "Lifestyle" issues are not impediments to the efficacy of the Sacrament. [As it happens, I don't think the issues are of the "lifestyle" kind in the case of acceptance of women's orders, but that really is a Dead Horse*]
The same arguments (justice, vocation, lack of relevant impediment) were the ones which prevailed in the case of ordaining women to the presbyterate/episcopate. But it is at the very very best highly contentious to claim that it was a return to ancient practice. At the worst, it's just plain crazy given the "evidence". Name me even one bit of uncontentious and historically respectable evidence of there having been acceptance of women priests (let alone bishops!) in the ancient Church (i.e. where its being practised or argued for is not immediately condemned by the wider Church). There's volumes of evidence (implict and explicit) to the contrary. If it had received anything like acceptance by the Church at any time we'd have heard a lot more about it, believe me. The Church is often at her loudest when she condemns what she sees as widespread error, or where she corrects her own past errors (cf the Arian controversy). The case for women in the pr/ep would be weak indeed if it relied on the historical evidence.
In other words, the historical argument is a complete red herring in this case, every bit as much as it would be in the case of +GR. If the Church is right to ordain women and "practising" homosexuals, then it is right to do so even in the teeth of a universal history of opposition to these issues - if justice demands it, and the Spirit is really calling these people to this ministry, then the history is not relevant. But these are obviously big "ifs" to many people.
+Gene has my prayers and best wishes, but I wish that things had not come to this. I have to admit, of course, that the Spirit may have a special purpose in bringing the Church to this place, but I can't be sure that we're where He wants us to be right now. And that will be as much my fault as anyone else's.
CB
*I say this in the interests of honesty - it's only fair that I should fess up to this. No single opinion of mine, on or off the Ship, has caused me as much personal difficulty and trouble with other good folk as my agnosticism about women's orders - I really don't want to go there again. I mean that.
[ 04. November 2003, 11:50: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
HT, without boring people with the details and beating a dead horse, this is a significently bigger break with scripture.
Nonsense. The DH thread amply demonstrates that the appointment of +Gene may well not have been a break from scripture in any sense.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.
If you mean Andrew's father, then, yes, that was the case when I was a parishioner of his.
But it's really irrelevant to this issue because that was about a theological disagreement, this is about an ethical one. (And yes, I know theology and ethics are related, but they are also different)
The "high-church" opponents of the ordination of women simply deny that it is possible for women to be ordained (some of the very few envangelical opponents seem to have thought it possible, but almost always undesirable)
The opponents of the ordination of Gene Robinson (& I suppose I am one, though I find myself astonished that this in one of the very few subjects on which I don't have a strong opinion - I don't know why, it's just hard to get worked up about it when there is so much else crap going on) if they are being consistent have to accept that Gene Robinson is a priest, and is a bishop. At worst he is a sinful priest - which would certainly be a Bad Thing, but hardly a new thing in the Church.
They might be saying that it is such a bad thing that they want to separate themselves from a church that thought it was a good thing - but that's still not the same as saying it is an impossible thing.
Which is why this fuss is all a storm in a teacup. Yes, a divide now exists, or has been widened, between us and New Hampshire. But a much bigger divide has existed for the last decade between the parish I worship at and the very next door parish, whose vicar refuses to accept our vicar as a priest.
Which is why going on about "once upon a time we didn't ordain women", although true, is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
(And trying to compare it with racism, saying "once upon a time we didn't ordain blacks" is even more irrelevant, because as well as being insulting its not true - I doubt if there was any part of the Anglican church that had a written rule about not ordaining black people, and if there was it would have been PECUSA. Anglicans and Presbyterians, and Methodists, were ordaining African ministers right through the 19th century, and the Catholics and Orthodox have been for all of their history)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
A friend of mine was sitting at General Synod once, doing some administrative role.
In front of her was a bald man with glasses who, at that meeting, presided over a substantial change to the understanding of the orders of the Church of England, a man who, if I have understood correctly, actively encouraged the ministration of ordained women from outside England whilst he was a parish priest even though the tradition of his own church and the majority of the communion at that time said that such persons were not priests at all and should not be even considered for ordination.
Dyfrig, your point is unclear to me. It might make a little more sense to me if I agreed with you that the ordination of women as priests was a change to the threefold ministry of the Church.
I'm also unclear what you mean about encouraging the ministration of a woman whose ministry was not permitted in the C of E. There's no need to speak in coy hints, just say what you mean.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Ken, there is indeed a category distinction between the ordination of women (which I would regard as anthropological (sic) ) and of gay persons (which is ethical), but they are both theological, and the point that I was making was that opponents of both have used the same set of arguments - the irony is that active proponents of the first (btw, I am referring to Monica Furlong's assertion that your father allowed women priests to preside in services in his parish long before 1992) found ways around those arguments in 1992, but are using ones of the same type now.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
Can I ask a couple of questions of clarification?
What is the DH thread?
Canon Gene Robinson became Bishop-cosomething of New Hampshire on Sunday. What have been the responses of the rest of the Anglican Communion?
Cheers
Ebor
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Bracketed comments are of course addressed to Andrew.
Forgive me if my last but one post sounded condescending, but I cannot help but be amused by it all - to argue from the Bible or Tradition on one topic, but to argue around that very same Bible or Tradition on another, especially when I'd say that both Scripture and Tradition are (all things considered) for more explicitly against the presidency of women than they are against faithful, monogamous seme-sex relationships.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Ebor. The DH thread is the thread called "homosexuality and christianity" on the Dead Horses board. It contains a lengthy yet highly interesting discussion as to whether scripture rules out homosexual practice or not.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Ken wrote:
quote:
The opponents of the ordination of Gene Robinson . . . if they are being consistent have to accept that Gene Robinson is a priest, and is a bishop. At worst he is a sinful priest - which would certainly be a Bad Thing, but hardly a new thing in the Church.
This is Catholic doctrine as I was taught it and have always understood it. My confirmation class textbook in 1967-68, when I was 15, was the once-well-known "The Christian Faith", by C B Moss, who would in those days have been called a "Prayer Book Catholic". In Chapter 63, Moss wrote:
quote:
The intention of ordination is that the bishop ordaining or consecrating intends to admit the candidate to one of the three Holy Orders of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that his personal belief about the functions of those who are ordained should be orthodox; nor is internal intention necessary, for if it were, we could never be certain that anyone was rightly ordained. (In Spain in the fifteenth century there were many bishops who were secretly Jews; the notorious Bishop Talleyrand, afterwards Napoleon’s minister, was an open unbeliever; but those whom such men ordained were held to be validly ordained.)
The other textbook from which I was taught the Faith was "A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England", by E J Bicknell (another Prayer Book Catholic). His discussion of Article XXVI ends with the startling words,
quote:
"We have no reason to suppose that Judas' ministry was any less productive of good results than that of the other Apostles."
You can't get more emphatic than that!
So I really am anxious, given the importance of this issue to the future of the Anglican Communion, to grasp why some within the communion hold + Gene Robinson's orders to be invalid. To do so seems to contradict the doctrine of orders that I was taught and have always believed.
(I'm not seeking to argue about it - just to understand.)
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Talleyrand is an excellent example of how extremely basic matters which ought to have disqualified one from being ordained/consecrated, or in honesty directed that a biship step down, and the Church nonetheless recognizes the ordination valid and the works of the bishop as works of a bishop.
I keep asking this until I feel my head will explode, but what is so bloody different about this one sin (stipulating for purposes of argument that it is a sin) that the bishop of Nigeria gets to say that people in league with Satan have taken over the ECUSA? I mean, really. And what is so different about this one sin that it justifies a schism?
(I'll concede that the difference between ordaining women vs. ordaining gays, is that nobody was even then arguing that simply being female and engaging in physical acts of love as a woman was sinful or against scripture in some way)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by Laura: I keep asking this until I feel my head will explode, but what is so bloody different about this one sin (stipulating for purposes of argument that it is a sin) that the bishop of Nigeria gets to say that people in league with Satan have taken over the ECUSA?
I think simply stated, it is a cultural taboo. I don't think anyone even really cares whether or not his orders are valid anyway. Seems like a moot point anyhow as it appears Nigeria and Kenya have declared the intention not to go to meetings where the ECUSA is present or to share communion. The story is here CNN
[ 04. November 2003, 14:58: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
MtP:
Don't think we haven't noticed that you haven't answered Erin's question.
Erin asked me a question? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Uh, where?
(And, yes, my assertation about the break with Scripture was bland and all that. First, I didn't want to go into DH material. Second, I was lazy. So there. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Yes siree, she did indeed, down there at the bottom of page 2:
quote:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
(Okay, it's a rhetorical question - but still!)
[ 04. November 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Bongo ]
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Bracketed comments are of course addressed to Andrew.
Forgive me if my last but one post sounded condescending, but I cannot help but be amused by it all - to argue from the Bible or Tradition on one topic, but to argue around that very same Bible or Tradition on another, especially when I'd say that both Scripture and Tradition are (all things considered) for more explicitly against the presidency of women than they are against faithful, monogamous seme-sex relationships.
You know that to answer this point would be to go into Dead Horses territory. It is enough to say that I don't agree with you at all, especially your last point.
I do find it condescending that you assume my father's views and mine are identical. Why on earth do you wheel this example out when you're engaging with me? For one thing I'm not bald and don't wear glasses.
[ 04. November 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: Andrew Carey ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
And not addressed to Mark......
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Oops. Sorry MtP!
I should not post hastily at work when I think the boss isn't looking!
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
Interesting, Andrew. You rant and rave about how the ECUSA did something illegal when it goes against your principles, but when some reactionary knuckle-dragging redneck does something illegal that AGREES with your principles, you applaud.
Hmmmm... what is the word for that...?
(Okay, it's a rhetorical question - but still. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
I don't rant and rave about the illegality of it, (although I think when you put together the years of debate on this issue in ECUSA which had reached no conclusion on the principles involved, there is something very strange about it ending at this point with the consecration of a practising homosexual). I simply think the consecration is plain wrong.
I see no reason therefore why those who oppose this act in principle shouldn't take sanctions by refusing to pay tax to dioceses and national church bodies and indeed other measures to distance themselves from the consecration.
In short, Erin misunderstands.
[UBB for quote]
[ 04. November 2003, 15:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I still find it utterly staggering (to put it mildy) that +Gene is "causing" so much angst and twisting of knickers when it is blatently obvious that he will make a much better bishop then some of the dunderheads who have been bishops for years.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
I tend to have that effect on men. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think simply stated, it is a cultural taboo. I don't think anyone even really cares whether or not his orders are valid anyway. Seems like a moot point anyhow as it appears Nigeria and Kenya have declared the intention not to go to meetings where the ECUSA is present or to share communion. The story is here CNN
Not quite, the situation in Kenya is fairly nuanced:
quote:
In Kenya, Archbishop Nzimbi said yesterday that his church would now not accept any support from the US Church, including missionaries, though there were signs that the attitudes in his area were more complex. The Kenyan bishop of Eldoret, Thomas Kogo, announced that his diocese would not recognize Canon Robinson but would maintain its ties to the New Hampshire diocese.
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
The whole story can be found here.
I do agree with you about the “cultural taboo” part.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
This is from your article Try:
quote:
KENYA 2.5 million worshippers
Likelihood of schism? Has already separated - Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi became the first to formally sever ties with the Americans, saying yesterday that "the devil has entered the church".
Doesn't sound real nuanced to me. I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya. Whatever your view on this, I think it's asinine to say Nigeria has cut itself off. It would appear as though we're in a raft steadily moving further from the shore, like it or not.
[ 04. November 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!
No, the position of Nigeria which is represented in these reports is in fact well represented in a statement issued from the Church of Nigeria on behalf of a working group of the Primates of the global south (Kenya is certainly in agreement with that group). The statement can be found at:
Statement
This working group represents up to 20 of the Provinces. But indicates that each Province will work out what that impaired communion means within its own context and framework. It will be months, and certainly a year when the commission reports, before we know how the impairment of communion is actually carried through.
Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.
[Edited for link.]
[ 04. November 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew Carey:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I don't think that ++Nzimbi said that his policy would extend to not attending Lambeth conferences if the US was there, either.
All in all, it looks like Peter Akinola has just cut his church off from the Anglican Communion. OOPS!!
No, the position of Nigeria which is represented in these reports is in fact well represented in a statement issued from the Church of Nigeria on behalf of a working group of the Primates of the global south (Kenya is certainly in agreement with that group). The statement can be found at:
Statement
This working group represents up to 20 of the Provinces. But indicates that each Province will work out what that impaired communion means within its own context and framework. It will be months, and certainly a year when the commission reports, before we know how the impairment of communion is actually carried through.
Before anyone from the Church of England thinks that it is only the African provinces which will have to work it out, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that there is an impairment of communion between the C of E and New Hampshire as well. The C of E will also not recognise the ministry of Gene Robinson. There are therefore questions over whether those he ordains and confirms will be recognised in anything but a small portion of the Anglican Communion.
"Impaired communion" doesn't mean a [non-purgatorial language deleted]ing thing. We've had impaired communion with lots of people in lots of places over the years, primarily over the woman bishops thing. We still go to Lambeth and we're still part of the Anglican Communion.
As far as I know, only Peter Akinola has decided that he will not attend any event that the ECUSA attends. Since the ECUSA will still attend the Lambeth Conferences (see the ABC's very moderate statement.), if Peter Akinola doesn't change his mind he won't be attending Lambeth any time soon. The other provinces who've signed onto the Global South's statement (not every province in the Global South has) appear to be symbolically cutting their ties to the Diocese of New Hampshire or the ECUSA as a whole, but the only other concrete "consequence" of such impaired communion is Kenya's decision not to accept American money or missionaries. Mr. Akinola may find himself rather lonely.
[Edited for link in quote.]
[ 04. November 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I have no idea if Akinola intends not to go to Lambeth (& anyway there will be a lot of water under a lot of bridges before that cmes round again). But the statement in that link doesn't mention that at all. The main thrust of it is that they want alternative episcopal oversight for ECUSA parishes that reject the consecration.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
"Impaired communion" doesn't mean a [non-purgatorial language deleted]ing thing. We've had impaired communion with lots of people in lots of places over the years, primarily over the woman bishops thing. We still go to Lambeth and we're still part of the Anglican Communion.
As far as I know, only Peter Akinola has decided that he will not attend any event that the ECUSA attends. Since the ECUSA will still attend the Lambeth Conferences (see the ABC's very moderate statement.), if Peter Akinola doesn't change his mind he won't be attending Lambeth any time soon. The other provinces who've signed onto the Global South's statement (not every province in the Global South has) appear to be symbolically cutting their ties to the Diocese of New Hampshire or the ECUSA as a whole, but the only other concrete "consequence" of such impaired communion is Kenya's decision not to accept American money or missionaries. Mr. Akinola may find himself rather lonely.
Who knows Try. what will happen tomorrow? I don't think that Archbishop Akinola will be alone in what he says about non-attendance at meetings at which ECUSA are also represented. You seem pretty sure that ECUSA bishops will be at the next Lambeth Conference -- you may be right, they may be there in a non-voting status or they may not be there at all.
You seem to recognise Archbishop Akinola as a plain 'Mr'. Well that's your prerogative. But as far as I'm aware there were no questions raised by any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion over whether his consecration should have taken place.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
/Pedantic mode on
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.
The Primate of Australia has stated, more or less, that he thinks we will all get over it and its a bit sad, but, you know, can't we all be friends...? The only way to have an "official" impaired communion between the provinces of Australia and ECUSA would be by General Synod Vote - and that aint gonna happen any time soon.
OTOH the Diocese of Sydney has yammered on about sin and immorality and the bible - and said that Big Gene is not welcome in their diocese. To quote Gene himself "Oh, I'd be far too busy to teach in one of the Archbishop's Sunday Schools anyway!"
/pedantic mode off
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Also, MaryO who was, like, there, started a thread when she could have posted her report here:
quote:
I was in Minneapolis for GC, and I was in Durham for the consecration. I was also at a party thrown by St. John's Portsmouth on Saturday night--a lovely do, and especially gracious since their rector (a charming man by the name of Tim Rich+) will be leaving to be +VGR's Canon to the Ordinary in March.
Saturday night, the street was blocked off by police and fire vehicles. Security guards were at the door and searched people's bags. I got a huge hug from +VGR when he came in, and yes, he was wearing body armor--as he had been in Minneapolis. His partner Mark and daughter Ella were there as well, of course. (I was teasing Mark and said, "I saw the perfect T-shirt for you--it says, 'Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?' above a picture of a basket." He laughed.)
The party ran until 11, and then the guards surrounded +VGR and his family and took them out. (Some of the rest of us found a pub that was still open and repaired thataway.)
Sunday morning lots of people who were staying at the University of New Hampshire Conference Center had breakfast at the dining room--all you can eat for $16.95 (and very good food it was). Folks wandered around the tables greeting each other, I and I got to say hello to +Herb Donovan, whose wife interviewed me for her book on 9/11; Louie Crew, +Orris Walker (LI), and a variety of other people.
I got to the conference center at 2:00, and we had to walk all the way around the front of the soccer field, past the media satellite trucks, and past the protesters. My friend Jan Nunley+ (deputy director of ENS) wandered off to chat with CNN reporters, and finally emerged to go vest with the other processing clergy.
The lay people I was with and I got into a sort-of line in the crowded lobby to get wanded by security. Bags were opened, cell phones examined, shoes removed, and then we got in to get our seats. My group had yellow tickets, which were supposed to get us reserved seats--but someone had forgotten to set up such a section (sigh). Since it was so crowded, I walked around the arena and sat opposite most of the congregation, next to the choir. I was so far forward I could see the musicians' music. I also had a first-rate view of +VGR, his family and presenters, and the attending bishops, for the first part of the service.
(To Be Continued)
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Sorry Degs, I can't give you chapter and verse right now, because I'm just checking in before flying out of the door. I may be able to get back to you this evening. Dr Williams said this in the press conference after the Primates Meeting, very clearly and I have since then checked with the Lambeth Palace Press Office. I can't remember whether these comments were reported in press coverage after the Primates Meeting a few weeks ago, but it should be fairly easy to check it out.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I'm just a Presbyterian (though that does make me, technically, a coadjutor-bishop with all my fellow presbyters!)
Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted apparent fact (I don't want to use the word 'alleged', as it has pejorative overtones!)of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces? (I am of course open to correction on the facticity of this.)
I'm having a hard time seeing this aspect (validity) of the issue as revolving around anything other than his openness about his lifestyle.
I was once invited to a charity 'race night' (one of those evenings where nugatory 'bets' are placed on the outcome of videos of horse races - nothing to do with the KKK!) by the Rotary Club I was a member of. I went along wearing my clerical collar, said grace at the buffet meal, and then placed some money, in the form of the aforesaid 'nugatory bets', on the outcome of a couple of races. I was gratified when I lost. It was that sort of evening.
In the course of the event, one of the guys came up and thanked me for my attendance, which was much appreciated. He noted, with express pleasure and a little surprise, that I had come and participated attired as a clergyman. (He was an elder, and I suspect a little uneasy, before the evening, about my likely attitude to his participation.) My unthinking and instant response was "Well, if it was wrong, I shouldn't be here at all , should I?"
I can understand people believing and saying that Gene Robinson shouldn't have been consecrated because of his lifestyle. But it seems to me that he has become a storm centre because of his openness and honesty. and that worries me a lot.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
Can someone explain to me how post facto Gene Robinson's consecration as an openly gay man is different to the apparently accepted . . . fact of the consecration of undeclared gay men in several Anglican provinces?
Like you, I'm still trying to get my brain around all of this, and I have just one small contribution.
Last night somebody explained to me their objection. It goes something like this . . .
My friend believes that homosexuality is a sin. (see thread in Dead Horses) My friend believes that GR is therefore an unrepentant sinner. If the sin was say, stealing, then we would expect GR to say "I'm sorry I stole, but it was for a good cause - helping the needy etc." However in this case GR is saying "I have done nothing wrong." And he continues to openly sin.
This was a tad bit enlightening to me. Hope it helps. I'm still trying to figure all this out.
eeG
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
eeGad: I can see your friend's position and understand it. It's just that I'm not quite sure it fits the situation. Isn't it more like having a friend who believes that 'private property is theft', and on that basis objects to the consecration of a bishop because the bishop, although he believes that theft is wrong, doesn't believe baldly that 'private property is theft', says so publicly, owns private property, and doesn't see hmself as a thief?
Whereas several other bishops, not contradicting the opinion that 'private property is theft' (whether they believe it or not) have ben consecrated without fuss because they have their cottages in the Lake District and their Swiss bank accounts discreetly out of sight. I'm not sure that you could class either kind of bishop as an 'unrepentant sinner' - which would certainly be the case with the bishop who writes sermons denouncing the evils of private property from the seclusion of the Surbiton semi he inherted from his granny! (I presume there is no-one in the Anglican episcopal order whose situation in terms of the present debate is analogous to this!)
But this all raises the question of what it means to be a sinner, and a repentant sinner. Is a sinner one whose state is sinful, and who acknowledges this, and asks for and receives forgiveness and acceptance, or rather one who is currently, or has been in the past, involved in doing a sinful thing? Is a repentant sinner one who confesses unworthiness and trusts to grace, or one who says "I did A, B, C, I know A, B, C, were wrong, and I repent of A, B, C?" I am somewhat taken aback that so many of the evangelical opponents of the Consecration seem to articulate the issue more in terms of 'sins' than 'sin'. This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.
And what of the man who says "I am unworthy, I trust entirely to God's grace and mercy, I have done many things in my life which were wrong, here are the ones I remember, I repent specifically and explicitly of them - but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."
Just asking...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Well, now its official
Muslims disown gay cleric. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Is this for real?
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
The Primate of Australia, the Archbishop of Perth, has voiced his objection as well. He almost sounds like he is considering thinking about contemplating looking into becoming orthodox in this kind of thing.
Yeah, I read that with interest. It sounds like the main problem he had was with how it was done, with haste, without adequate consulation and all that. He did praise the statement of the Southern Primates though, which goes beyond questions of process.
Still, the ++ of Perth doesn't have reputation of being very conservative, does he? I don't know much about him, but I think I see why you're a bit surprised.
BTW, the statement by the Southern Primates is also interesting, I think. It says communion is impaired but doesn't break it off. And reading between the lines at the end, it seems they don't entirely agree on how to proceed from here.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
I think the primate of Australia is just a little bit afraid of rocking the boat. Won't do anything to encourage the Jensens blah blah blah...
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
