|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Consecration Will Include Objections
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
On the other hand, the other ++Peter doesn't seem to be too concerned about getting the rowlocks under the water. I read the Southern Primates' Statement and wondered if he might not have been just a little disappointed that it wasn't as tough as it may have been expected.
<stands back and admires that last woolly sentence. Am I an Anglican yet or what?>
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage*
Shipmate
# 4937
|
Posted
The statement by the ++ Peter Carnley reads to me as an each-way bet. His concern about process is, I think, widely shared outside ECUSA. Similar words were uttered by others when a certain bishop "jumped the gun" on women's ordination. I certainly don't see any suggestion in his remarks that he will try to escalate the issue. Indeed, he specifically hoses down talk of schism.
quote:
Alt Wally said:
I expect Uganda, the Southern Cone and Australia to follow the lead of Nigeria and Kenya.
I find this extraordinary, and can only assume it comes from a lack of understanding about the Province of Australia. Sure, Sydney is posturing about it, and ++ Peter J has declared + Gene unwelcome as an official visitor in Sydney. I wouldn't let it go to his head - being persona non grata in Sydney isn't that big an achievement. They keep threatening to cut the rest of the country loose, too, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. As for the rest of Australia, that's a very diverse and complex creature, comprising some who are of a mind with Sydney and others of a very different complexion.
{edited because making sense is A Good Thing}
[ 06. November 2003, 07:46: Message edited by: Cranmer's baggage ]
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 729 | From: the antipodes | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Psyduck:
If I have it right, you're saying that you see the "unrepentant sinner" argument as based on the idea that (from the conservative viewpoint) +Robinson is committing a mortal sin and failing to repent of it?
I'm highly confused by this whole issue. The conservatives need to clarify their position, if they have a single one, I think. Taking the following starting points:
a) There's such a thing as a mortal sin
b) Active homosexuality is a mortal sin
Then, there are as I see it 5 reasons for opposing +GR:
1. He's a sinner
2. He's an unrepentant sinner
3. He sets a bad example
4. He teaches dangerous heresy.
Now, I've yet to see 4 given as a reason from the conservative side but it's the only one that keeps me on the fence, and the reason I don't jump off on the conservative side is because I'm not convinced of the validity of a) and b).
Taking the others in turn, we have
1. Donatism
2. Donatism
3. We're not meant to imitate bishops.
So, can any conservatives reading this please clarify, do you believe 4 to be your argument, and if not, can you explain what it could be? The more mathematically inclined will notice that I haven't defined number 5. It starts with "H" and upsets people.
Note to hosts: I'm not flogging the Dead Horse. I'm genuinely trying to get at the conservative position here. The loyal opposition's position seems clear to me - that at least b) above is false.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Muslims disown gay cleric.
So, after all the pontificating about how Gene Robinson's consecration would do irreparable harm to Christian/Muslim relations in Africa... the first statement we see by African Muslims on the matter is one of solidarity with the stance taken by their homegrown Anglicans. It warms your heart.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
eeGAD
Wandering Stowaway
# 4675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
I'm highly confused by this whole issue.
Me too. Let's start a club!
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
This seems an example of that kind of thinking, which actually strikes me as much more (pre-Vatican II?) Roman Catholic than Protestant.
How astute of you! Indeed he was raised RC, but in currently a member of ECUSA.
quote:
By psyduck:
"but this other thing I just cannot understand by any light that God has given as sinful."
I think this right here is the crux of the matter. And as it is Dead Horse territory, I will not comment further, except to say that I now understand why these events have created such a horrible muddle. I doubt that a clear conclusion will ever be found on this one.
eeG
--------------------
You don't fix faith. It fixes you. - Shepherd Book
Posts: 976 | From: The Land of Mary | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Cranmer's baggage, I think it's probably a combination of my tendency to project Sydney as the rest of Australia and the incipient pessimism I've been feeling about our ability to stay together.
I'm trying to remain positive.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Grey Face said:
So, can any conservatives reading this please clarify, do you believe 4 to be your argument, and if not, can you explain what it could be?
Ok, I’ll bite. Firstly, you can forget all about Donatism, St. Augustine and the whole notion of valid consecration. My objections are not rooted in those areas. As far as I am concerned, GR was validly consecrated in the light of Article 26 of the 39 Articles.
The argument is not about the technical validity, but rather the ethical wisdom, the moral correctness, and the ecclesiological desirability of the consecration, in the light of the raging moral, ethical and theological debate in the wider Anglican Communion, and indeed, the wider church.
The consecration of Gene Robinson was a major political statement that was intended to send a very powerful message. You only have to look at the ceremony itself - televised from a sports stadium - to get the flavour of something very unusual taking place. It was more akin to a political rally.
During the service of consecration of an Anglican bishop, the episcopal candidate is charged to live “…soberly righteously and godly, that you may show yourself in all things as an example of good works…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR is not the first gay bishop by a long way, but he is the first before his consecration to be completely open and in-your-face with it, especially in the light of his married past. By contrast, Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow, only came out after he retired (and also after he was widowed).
As far as ECUSA is concerned, GR is not in unrepentant sin, and he is living a godly life. However, as someone who has opposed the consecration of GR, numbers 2 (unrepentant sin) and 3 (bad example) are immediate candidates for me.
Another charge to the episcopal candidate is to “…teach and exhort wholesome doctrine…” and “…to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR’s consecration has demonstrated de facto that the dominant party within ECUSA consider an intimate gay relationship, and its implications for moral and pastoral theology, “wholesome teaching” and not some “erroneous doctrine contrary to God’s word”.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are now obliged to agree with that statement. The revisionist case proposed has now been deemed by events to have been accepted. Legitimate dissent with integrity is no longer possible in NH. It’s either shut up and agree, or get out.
I am not sure if heresy (number 4) is the right word for that, but it represents a dangerous illiberalism of the worst kind. I include a link to a very perceptive article by Janet Daley in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. She uses the phrase “liberalism militant”. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The argument is not about the technical validity, but rather the ethical wisdom, the moral correctness, and the ecclesiological desirability of the consecration, in the light of the raging moral, ethical and theological debate in the wider Anglican Communion, and indeed, the wider church.
The consecration of Gene Robinson was a major political statement that was intended to send a very powerful message. You only have to look at the ceremony itself - televised from a sports stadium - to get the flavour of something very unusual taking place. It was more akin to a political rally.
Huh? The Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of New Hampshire chose someone with whom they had been working for years. They knew +GR very well, and was calling him--not making a statement. Bishops Diocesan are not appointed in the ECUSA.
And, about the consecration taking place in a sports stadium. That is not unusual in the United States. While there are a few very large Episcopal/Anglican cathedrals on the North American continent (New York, NY; Washington, DC; Victoria, BC), most cathedrals in the US would be hard pressed to hold 1500 people. Typically they would hold closer to 500 people or so. For example, rather than limiting attendance to using St. Mark's Cathedral, +Vincent Warner was consecrated the Bishop of Olympia in a building that served as, among other things, the hockey rink for the Seattle Thunderbirds.
When a crowd is expected, expect a consecration in the US to take place someplace other than the cathedral--if the diocese even has a cathedral. (Not all dioceses in the US have a cathedral.)
quote:
During the service of consecration of an Anglican bishop, the episcopal candidate is charged to live “…soberly righteously and godly, that you may show yourself in all things as an example of good works…” (1929 Scottish BCP).
GR is not the first gay bishop by a long way, but he is the first before his consecration to be completely open and in-your-face with it, especially in the light of his married past. By contrast, Derek Rawcliffe, the retired Bishop of Glasgow, only came out after he retired (and also after he was widowed).
So, you are saying that any candidate for bishop needs to be bearing false witness against all his neighbors?
quote:
As far as ECUSA is concerned, GR is not in unrepentant sin, and he is living a godly life. However, as someone who has opposed the consecration of GR, numbers 2 (unrepentant sin) and 3 (bad example) are immediate candidates for me.
What is so bad about his example?
+GR tried therapy and marriage. As in many, many other similar cases, the marriage was ill advised. Instead of living a lie, he admitted his error in getting married. He did not run from the responsiblities of his children. He now is living a faithful life with another person.
When I was teaching high school back in South Dakota, a gay student of mine was depressed enough to have very well thought out suicide plans (location, weapon, etc.). I really wish I would have had someone like +GR to point to, saying there is a life for you.
Let's ask the real question: Was +GR called by God to be bishop?
Of course, I would say most of us do not have a definitive, above any question, answer on this (unless you are the Bishop of Rome, that is). We may have our reasons for why we believe why we do, but there should always an element of doubt.
If you cannot accept the possibility--even if remote--that the consecration of +GR is of God, then I think the choice of the next pope will be clear.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Statement from Anglican Church in Tanzania
quote:
We shall not recognize the Ministry of Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as a Bishop of the Church because he is not;
quote:
We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:
i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;
ii. Bishops who permit the blessing of same sex unions in their dioceses;
iii. Gay priests and deacons;
iv. Priests who bless same sex unions.
Is this the most "drastic" statement yet?
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Statement from Anglican Church in Tanzania
quote:
We declare that, henceforth we are not in communion, namely, Communion in sacris, with:
i. Bishops who consecrate homosexuals to the episcopate and those Bishops who ordain such persons to the priesthood and the deaconate of license them to minister in their dioceses;
I suspect this bit means that they're out of communion with Rowan (hasn't he admitted to ordaining homosexuals whilst AB of Wales?). Therefore they have presumably just declared themselves out of the Anglican Communion.
*Sigh*
Peronel
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Looks like another objection has been registered Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The article is from yesterday, but I believe the resolution in question passed today.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I wasn't around when the ordination of women was a big item of contention (as opposed to whatever it is now). Was it this big? Was it this bitter?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Who are Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry, and why don't they want to be called Episcopal anymore?
[ 09. November 2003, 11:38: Message edited by: jugular ]
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage*
Shipmate
# 4937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
I wasn't around when the ordination of women was a big item of contention (as opposed to whatever it is now). Was it this big? Was it this bitter?
It was at least this big, but we were all in the end saved from great catastrophe by due process - which is why some of us are so upset by the NH action. Was it this bitter? Wrong tense - for some it still is bitter. IMHO, in terms of comparison, you ain't seen nothing yet. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Jugular,
Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry was founded in the 70's by an Australian, Bp. Alf Stanway. It has always stood in the evangelical tradition of Anglicanism, and has strong links to the African church, for whom it is a favoured US training establishment. This link is a natural one, since Alf Stanway was a missionary in Africa for a long time. My guess is that they are thinking of dropping the Episcopal from their title because they don't want to be associated with the "liberal" ethos of ECUSA.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 729 | From: the antipodes | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Oops!
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By the unfortunate omission of the word 'knowingly' from their excommunication of bishops who have ordained homosexuals, the Church in Tanzania have, perhaps unwittingly, excommunicated virtually every Anglican bishop in the world. Including, in all probability, themselves. Oops!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good thing they didn't say, "Anathema!"
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
