A
First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America
- Status
B
blazerdave
Guest
This is terrible.
Just be careful not to say you oppose it, or else certain caustic Forum members will call you a Donatist and a heretic!
Just be careful not to say you oppose it, or else certain caustic Forum members will call you a Donatist and a heretic!
G
GKC
Guest
I oppose it. And I’m not likely to be accused of Donatism.
Folks do call me schismatic, from time to time, though.
GKC
B
blazerdave
Guest
I wouldn’t be too sure. All I said was that it was an “embarrassing weekend” for those of us in TEC, and that was enough for me to be called Donatist by someone who clearly has no clue what the Donatist controversy was about. But this is probably the 4th time that particular individual has chosen to ridicule my positions and has resorted to namecalling, so I’m through with him and with his Church.
S
ShanaA1984
Guest
I oppose this and anyone can call me whatever they like. I fear no one but the Lord and his son.
B
benidict
Guest
its interesting to note, that the more liberal wing “vowed” to keep ordaining homosexual clergy. does this mean you must have homosexual on your resume to be ordained? its sad this is happening, and i really cannot think of a term for it. its kind of like spiritual suicide in that people who feel alienated by this practice will leave in droves. this has got to be tearing congregations apart. a friend of mine is an episcipalian priest, and i know he for one, would never stand for this. i think he belongs to a more conservative branch tho. i will pray for them. Peace
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Totally aside from the ordination of women issue, and the issue of ordaining someone is sexually active openly outside of marriage -
what really bugs me is this. How can the Episcopalians, and the Anglican Church of Canada, say they are in good faith with Anglicans worldwide and see that there has been a moratorium because this kind of thing has been destroying their church in the West? Why do they even bother to go to Lambeth or other meetings?
I understand that they think they are right, but they almost seem to be setting out to destroy communities, parishes, and the Communion. How can they think this is a good idea?
what really bugs me is this. How can the Episcopalians, and the Anglican Church of Canada, say they are in good faith with Anglicans worldwide and see that there has been a moratorium because this kind of thing has been destroying their church in the West? Why do they even bother to go to Lambeth or other meetings?
I understand that they think they are right, but they almost seem to be setting out to destroy communities, parishes, and the Communion. How can they think this is a good idea?
G
GKC
Guest
If you’re speaking of the person that I think you are (and I’m not sure), he must assuredly does know what constitutes Donatism. Trust me on that.
GKC
B
blazerdave
Guest
If you insist. He certainly misused it in this case.
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I insist. But his logic is …hmm…logical.
If you object ( as I do, though it is an academic issue for me) to that “consecration”, there are two possible reasons for doing so, considering that individual. One involves the 4 elements of an historically valid sacramental action: minister, intent, form and matter. The minister is an open issue; the gracious Katherine will not be the only one laying hands on Glasspool’s hairspray. Intent is subjective; without delving into some technical issues, we shall by-pass it. Form we will assume is valid. The obvious problem is matter. To object to this consecration one is most likely looking at the recepient as invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders.
To consider her lifestyle as the problem raises Donatism. To say that it was imprudent to attempt to consecrate her, as a notorious sinner (for example). which your nemesis seems to admit, is certainly permissible, and if you were taking that tack, you and he were in agreement. But if you were saying that she was invalid matter, sacramentally, for that reason only, you were not.
If it’s all miscommunication, that would explain it, too.
He and I disagree about much. But we still talk.
GKC
L
larkin31
Guest
Gays are already in the ministry of ALL religions, and have done a fine job. Maybe it is time we just admit it and openly acknowledge it? They are parents, soldiers, teachers, doctors, preachers.
B
blazerdave
Guest
With all due respect, there is a third reason for objection that you have missed. That reason involves a desire to maintain an AC, rather than intentionally taking steps to damage it. I have several African friends who are Anglican, so this is necessarily a more personal matter for me than for most. This ridiculous sideshow consecration causes me much personal embarrassment. It is a sad day for me.
I do appreciate the response. I can assure you that I am quite well-versed in these matters myself, so I am not just shooting from the hip here. Again, here is what was said. I stated that it was an “embarrassing weekend” for those of us in TEC. Why? Because we were engaging in an action whose sole intention was to increase strife in the AC. I was embarrassed, and thus called it what it was. I was then told that my behavior was not unlike the Donatist heresy. For saying that we should not do this - for the sake of the Communion - I am a Donatist. There is nothing logical whatsoever about that, sir. You don’t know me, but I can assure you that I am extraordinarily familiar with the Donatist controversy; and I find it offensive that one would be so blindly loyal to his Church that he would resort to name-calling rather than reading my lament as what it was - a true lament over a tragic and divisive event. No offense, but you seem perhaps more willing to take his side than to understand mine. I fear that further discussion of this matter might not be productive.
G
GKC
Guest
You may be right. And you might possibly (having foresworn the other thread?) missed my comment about how long I’ve known Contarini (around 10 years), and been arguing with him. He doesn’t like my dismissal of his soteriological/Christological defense of ordination (attempted) of females, either. Yet, we still talk. And I readily admit his (formal) scholarship in these issues.With all due respect, there is a third reason for objection that you have missed. That reason involves a desire to maintain an AC, rather than intentionally taking steps to damage it. I have several African friends who are Anglican, so this is necessarily a more personal matter for me than for most. This ridiculous sideshow consecration causes me much personal embarrassment. It is a sad day for me.
I do appreciate the response. I can assure you that I am quite well-versed in these matters myself, so I am not just shooting from the hip here. Again, here is what was said. I stated that it was an “embarrassing weekend” for those of us in TEC. Why? Because we were engaging in an action whose sole intention was to increase strife in the AC. I was embarrassed, and thus called it what it was. I was then told that my behavior was not unlike the Donatist heresy. For saying that we should not do this - for the sake of the Communion - I am a Donatist. There is nothing logical whatsoever about that, sir. You don’t know me, but I can assure you that I am extraordinarily familiar with the Donatist controversy; and I find it offensive that one would be so blindly loyal to his Church that he would resort to name-calling rather than reading my lament as what it was - a true lament over a tragic and divisive event. No offense, but you seem perhaps more willing to take his side than to understand mine. I fear that further discussion of this matter might not be productive.
And I’ll try one more time. I can see your point about your African friends. I agree it’s a scandal, and imprudent (as well as invalid). But, eventually, au fond, one has to come up with a doctrinal position to object to, not just to say that some don’t accept it. Contarini was trying to find and identify what that doctrinal objection might be, to this particular individual. And, though it was his idea, it was I (I think) who first used the word Donatism, countering him.
If you have no such doctrinal objection, beyond what the reaction of some might be, you and he are in agreement. If you have a doctrinal objection (mine is sacramental matter), what might it be?
GKC
B
blazerdave
Guest
He’s not the only Anglican with formal theological scholarship on this Forum. I’m outta here.
G
GKC
Guest
B
benidict
Guest
im sure they do a fine job. i could care less what they do in their private lives. however when they cross the line, and attempt to force acceptance for a lifestyle that many find repugnant, thats another issue altogether. why do they have to be so open about their gay lifestyle? is it some kind of heroic action that you can have physical relations with the same sex?
L
larkin31
Guest
not heroic, just honest and openim sure they do a fine job. i could care less what they do in their private lives. however when they cross the line, and attempt to force acceptance for a lifestyle that many find repugnant, thats another issue altogether. why do they have to be so open about their gay lifestyle? is it some kind of heroic action that you can have physical relations with the same sex?
I find some aspects of religion “repugnant”, but I don’t argue that religion should be kept in a closet.
if the press would not sensationalize it, we would not even know. I sure don’t care.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Hmm, well, what if we surmised that the problem with homosexual clergy was that there is actually a defect in the matter, not because of their acts(sins), but because of their “disordered nature”?
This is what I understand the Catholic objection as being, though I don’t think I agree myself. (and in fact I suspect the Catholic position on this may be rather contradictory).
G
GKC
Guest
That’s where the idea of Donatism comes in. The proper matter for Holy Orders is a baptized, confirmed male, of a certain age. Morality not a factor. No one is adequately moral to qualify.
Now, prudence is another matter. So to speak.
GKC
- Status