tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post4925812241448213728..comments2024-03-14T04:20:01.243-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: Breaking News: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams requests the Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Schori withdraw from the Anglican Communion Standing CommitteeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-70956693027690641982013-07-26T18:46:23.448-04:002013-07-26T18:46:23.448-04:00Hi My Fellow blogger,
I'm kindly asking for y...Hi My Fellow blogger,<br /><br />I'm kindly asking for your approval of this comment as a link to my blogspot blog, no spam intended.<br />Many thanks in advance.<br /><br />Dwayne Fr: Higgington Post <br />_____________________<br /><a href="http://higgingtonpost.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Higgington Post</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00777520670525517420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-60910866646926492382010-06-29T11:39:41.702-04:002010-06-29T11:39:41.702-04:00Fr. Weir, First, thanks for retracting your "...Fr. Weir, First, thanks for retracting your "very small point" label and understanding the complexity of the bishop's authority and the parish not following it depending on the issue. It is troubling because I have no problem with a bishop who lines up with God's word. But I have a problem with those who don't and are out rewriting what Jesus said and meant.<br /><br />You make a point that a lot of us agree with. Why would a bishop or priest be in a church where they don't agree with the position of the church? Yet, Pike, Spong, Righter, etc., did and things were changed - from what they were. Why could <i>they</i> have not left? Why couldn't the Susan Russells and Gene Robinsons, etc. gone and started their own church? Why was it promised when women's ordination was crammed down our throats that there would always be room for the diversity of those objecting? Now there isn't - even by your own words. Now it will be gay ordinations/consecrations. What's next? And then I get back to the same old question: What happens when it's too far for even you?<br /><br />Why would anyone stay? Because of the vows they took: to defend the church from error. Why should we have to leave because people like you want to change it? Why don't YOU leave? Not so easy, is it?<br /><br />I understand you don't like to be challenged as to your interpretations of Scripture. Who does? But here's the thing. Where's the line? At what point does your "interpretation" intersect with mine? Or worse, with Jesus'? You see, I have a very real problem with divorce. Jesus says God hates it. That matters so much to me I waited until I was 31 to get married. While there are times I'd like to FedEx my spouse Next Minute back to Mom, I know we have to work it out. But if I were in the position of a divorce, I know remarriage is out. Because Jesus said so. I struggle in other areas where Jesus said not to do things. But I do struggle to comply. Does He forgive? Yes. Are there situations where divorce is necessary? Yes. But a bishop in the church to be twice-divorced and three times married is a disgrace.<br /><br />When you pick and choose or "interpret", it is those interpretations that tell the rest of us how close you are to believing in the "authority" of Scripture. God gives discernment. Perhaps, instead of being offended, be challenged to question yourself in prayer with God if He's happy with your interpretations. Do your interpetations line up with God's character or man's desires? That's a question that only you can answer for yourself...well, only God and you. All the rest of us do is line what you say up against God's word. For me, if it doesn't line up, I question it - no matter who it is. We are supposed to hold everything up - and it doesn't matter how "good" someone may seem. They can make mistakes - they're and we are all human.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-2070613135361760252010-06-26T09:57:15.149-04:002010-06-26T09:57:15.149-04:00Fr. Weir, I want to respond to your comment, but h...Fr. Weir, I want to respond to your comment, but have been serving my spouse as caregiver the last few days. I wanted you to know we were not ignoring you. <br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />L2Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-61551844914112598132010-06-23T11:46:29.534-04:002010-06-23T11:46:29.534-04:00I will retract my "very small point" lab...I will retract my "very small point" label because I actually think that it is a large point, i.e., the freedom of parishes to call priests. What I should have written was that I was unwilling to get drawn an extended discussion of the larger issues. I believe that arguments can be made on both sides of the issue of a Bishop's authority to refuse to approve the calling or a licensing of a woman priest. I think my position is right, but I see the point that the other side is making, i.e., even being required to recognize the ordination of a woman as valid can be seen as a violation of conscience. What that position logically leads to is the conscientious refusal of such a Bishop to recognize any the validity of the ordination of the PB or any other woman ordained to the episcopate, and, perhaps of the validity of any action by the General Convention where women are seated as clerical deputies. If a Bishop's conscience leads him to that conclusion, I wonder why he would want to remain in the Episcopal Church.<br /><br />On the larger point that Lakeland Two raises, there are many of us in the revisionist camp who take serously the authority of Scripture and who are somewhat offended when traditionalists insist that we don't, simply because we have different interpretations of Scripture on certain points. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I would rather not be dismissed as not holding that Scripture is authoritative. Try reading the Gospels and the Epistles with an eye to the diversity of understandings of Jesus, e.g., that are there. No matter what Canon Kearon says, I don't see theological diversity in the Communion as a problem.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-91493575974872443852010-06-23T10:28:41.919-04:002010-06-23T10:28:41.919-04:00One last thought before I take my better half out ...One last thought before I take my better half out to the dentist.<br /><br />Scout is the only one who had the guts to respond to "Where is the line? What will you do when TEC goes too far for even you?" His response, if I remember, was that he would leave without thought of taking the property with him - my words not his.<br /><br />My problem with that is the problems never get solved, just magnified. The question of who left, who's Anglican, just keeps reminding me of Solomon and the women fighting over the baby. God blesses that which pleases Him. BB's previous post - If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. TEC's not growing. These swapping agruments aren't solving anything because we are of two different mindsets. Present some solutions that honor God. In absence of that, the conversation is over. Which is why many have left. My opinion is that even here in Diocese of Central Florida the Episcopal church will not be recognizable in 20 years.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-247984988534512012010-06-23T09:41:31.167-04:002010-06-23T09:41:31.167-04:00Fr. Weir,
I'm not trying to sandbag you. This...Fr. Weir,<br /><br />I'm not trying to sandbag you. This is a very real question on issues that matter to conservatives. But the conversation ends when we bring up things that are non-negotiables for us.<br /><br />Until you or your mates can reasonably discuss that, we are at an impasse. Diminishing a question/person by labeling it "a very small point" is reflective of the mentality that has placed our church in the position it is in. What's important to "you" trumps what is important to the other "you". Pure chaos. That is not of God.<br /><br />The question of what is the deciding factor for the future is an important question. I think Dale Matson perfected the thought in his last post. That the question is avoided is not surprising because it would require accountablity. Having no absolutes is far more convenient.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-87659256479661869542010-06-23T09:18:19.259-04:002010-06-23T09:18:19.259-04:00Having raised a very small point about the conflic...Having raised a very small point about the conflict between Bishops and lay people over the ordination of women, I will resist the temptation to get drawn into the issues that Lakeland Two raise. I have insufficient time to address them and I am sure that whatever I might write has bee written before on this and other blogs. I am not insane and thus will not repeat ad nauseum the arguments that have been unconvincing in the past hoping that there will be a different outcome this time.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-35349997339911843512010-06-23T08:26:04.792-04:002010-06-23T08:26:04.792-04:00Fr. Weir,
"the question remains as to whether...Fr. Weir,<br />"the question remains as to whether the Bishop's convictions should trump those of others in the diocese." Isn't that the way TEC polity has worked until now? The only way you can justify this statement is if TEC polity is hierarchical. The problem with this approach is that it is hierarchical when useful for the PB and DBB and it is not when it is more convenient to refer to TEC as democratic and bottom up. This parsing of polity results from inconvenient inconsistencies.Dale Matsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12975212053636312471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-51458429894422372032010-06-23T08:01:59.110-04:002010-06-23T08:01:59.110-04:00Fr. Weir,
I'm just at a loss. So the bishop&...Fr. Weir,<br /><br />I'm just at a loss. So the bishop's authority in his diocese is cut when the parish wants something different when it's a female priest? Yet it isn't when the shoe is on the other foot - say, a conservative parish doesn't want something else the bishop wants (insert any liberal item)? Is that not chaos?<br /><br />It goes back to what I have asked over and over again and never have gotten a workable answer (and only got one answer at that): Where do you draw the line at what is acceptable and what isn't. For the last 2,000 years the line has been what Jesus taught, and now that's picked and choosed through while disregarding even the "Red Letter" parts of the Bible. We are reaping the sad results of the abandoning of listening to God.<br /><br />Without workable rules, much less than obeying God, we are failing in our church and we should be the example for our society, not just another example of it. If we all are doing our own thing under the guise of "diversity" what are we really saying to the rest of the world? Do your own thing as long as it's your way? That isn't what God has taught us from the beginning and if you (in the plural sense - not just Fr. Weir) aren't willing to submit yourself to God and His rules you have no business being a priest or a bishop or a presiding bishop.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-25934352597176751002010-06-23T07:59:07.837-04:002010-06-23T07:59:07.837-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-58386752684931686812010-06-22T11:56:26.971-04:002010-06-22T11:56:26.971-04:00Dale,
I think you are right, but the question re...Dale,<br /> <br />I think you are right, but the question remains as to whether the Bishop's convictions should trump those of others in the diocese. I recognize that an argument can be made that they should, but I don't agree. Having been a candidate for a parish that had been denied the option of considering women priests, and having seen the effect the Bishop's denial had, I think Bishops should be willing to license priests who are women and to confirm their election as rectors.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-35646463982902326752010-06-22T10:49:22.610-04:002010-06-22T10:49:22.610-04:00Fr. Weir,
"What has changed - I hope - is tha...Fr. Weir,<br />"What has changed - I hope - is that Bishops are no longer free to impose their convictions on parishes who disagree with them." Isn't TEC requiring a Bishop who does not believe in WO to go against his own convictions by requiring him to allow a female priest in his diocese?Dale Matsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12975212053636312471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-20340021170873402072010-06-22T10:15:12.700-04:002010-06-22T10:15:12.700-04:00Allen-
You wrote, "There is no room for diss...Allen-<br /><br />You wrote, "There is no room for dissent in this Church." For a moment I though that you were criticizing traditionalists for demanding that there be no dissent from their position on same-sexuality. Foolish of me.<br /><br />I think the actions taken in recent years about the ordination of women do not amount to a stifling of dissent. Bishops are still free to refuse to ordain women and parishes are still free to have only male priests. What has changed - I hope - is that Bishops are no longer free to impose their convictions on parishes who disagree with them. Why should a Bishop be allowed to deny a parish the right to call a women to serve as rector or assistant? Is there to be no room for dissent in dioceses where the Bishop's convictions are such that he cannot in conscience ordain a women?Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-67196822356627694592010-06-21T21:05:13.312-04:002010-06-21T21:05:13.312-04:00in last comment, "leave the church" shou...in last comment, "leave the church" should read "lead the church". Sorry about that. It really changes the meaning.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-74749008774937508882010-06-21T05:44:33.507-04:002010-06-21T05:44:33.507-04:00Perhaps not, if that's how you choose to frame...Perhaps not, if that's how you choose to frame it. However, some would say that there is a duty to promote Christian unity and to witness for correct doctrine. My unscientific guess is that the rank and file membership of the Episcopal Church is less "revisionist" than are the rather narrow group that purports to leave the church. I suspect that may also be true of the clergy. I think that in manufacturing the case for leaving, the size and proportion of the revisionist elements have been magnified beyond what reality would indicate. But these things are impossible to measure accurately.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-51906179892193708062010-06-20T23:49:04.277-04:002010-06-20T23:49:04.277-04:00Well, All I know is that when the heat turned up, ...Well, All I know is that when the heat turned up, the blog turned off. Like so many other facets of information control in that diocese, one can see that things are carefully portrayed with very little acknowledgement that there is any rift, complaint, or split in this Church. I don't buy that things were too time consuming. The blog didn't speak the line so it was canned.<br /><br />BTW: When people (those that left)keep casting their pearls before the swinish, divisive, and heretical behavior of radical revisionists they usually don't hang around to keep up the entertainment value of portraying a conversation that isn't happening.<br />To tickle the fancy and delusions of revisionists isn't our duty.Allennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-79795240331441819302010-06-20T07:40:27.437-04:002010-06-20T07:40:27.437-04:00I wouldn't take the discontinuation of a blog ...I wouldn't take the discontinuation of a blog as a sign to squelch dissent. Maintaining a blog is time-consuming. Good ones are hard to find. I never have encountered or observed any problems in the Diocese of Virginia with people not being able to express views on the issues of the day. In fact, it always struck me as odd that many people would leave rather than stay to express their views. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-90956851456663908262010-06-19T11:25:56.445-04:002010-06-19T11:25:56.445-04:00P.S.:
Speaking of the Great Lie of late -
I know...P.S.:<br /><br />Speaking of the Great Lie of late -<br /><br />I know that dissent is not allowed in this Church through the actions of Bishop Neff Powell of Southwestern Virginia. At one time he had a blog in his diocese. It was a free-flowing forum where real voices of concern and dissent were found. Sometimes a bit wild, but isn't that part of the "conversation" that revisionists promised? When things got too hot for him in the blog he shut it down.<br /><br />How's that for conversation?Allennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-72469902665761551382010-06-19T11:20:21.403-04:002010-06-19T11:20:21.403-04:00There is no room for dissent in this Church. You e...There is no room for dissent in this Church. You either buy into the Great Lie or you are slowly melted into second class membership. Remember all the promises made throughout this Church about W.O. when it was adopted? How it was voluntary? How there was "room" for dissent. No one would be forced into anything. The tent was big? Fast forward to now and you have your answer: none of that was true. This Church is run by heretics who can't stop themselves in their own lies and so there is no recourse but to keep telling them.<br /><br />Now, time has come to answer up and there is no recourse but to...you guessed it...keep on lying to themselves and the rest of us.Allennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-43451466862654319292010-06-19T09:48:45.636-04:002010-06-19T09:48:45.636-04:00Roger/Lapin - I think all of these meetings and ev...Roger/Lapin - I think all of these meetings and events should be available for all to hear and see. Let us all judge for ourselves. It's said in Scripture multiple times that things hidden will be brought out into the light - and that applies to both sides.<br /><br />I give the Ex. Council credit for not closing the meeting, though a gig to Kearon for asking for it. But I am embarrassed as a member of TEC that they cut him off - especially after asking him to come on his vacation. It proves yet again that the "conversation" is one way, dissent is not considered part of the conversation.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-35573477369718202522010-06-18T10:53:40.105-04:002010-06-18T10:53:40.105-04:00Thanks, Lakeland Two. Just curious. No agenda. ...Thanks, Lakeland Two. Just curious. No agenda. So it was Kearon & maybe the ABC who wanted this? And now, it seems, K has moved from annoying just the one wing of the communion, to annoying both.<br /><br />Mark Harris, who is on the Executive Committee, has just posted the first of what will apparently be at least two pieces on Kearon's meeting(s?) with the Committee.<br /><br />[Lapinbizarre]Roger Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05851667502861778031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-10971357897323182712010-06-18T00:35:11.843-04:002010-06-18T00:35:11.843-04:00http://www.anglican.tv/content/supporting-anglican...http://www.anglican.tv/content/supporting-anglicantvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-7537095591192671282010-06-17T23:11:40.925-04:002010-06-17T23:11:40.925-04:00Lapinbizarre:
From Fundraising Letter from ATV I ...Lapinbizarre:<br /><br />From Fundraising Letter from ATV I received on April 9, 2010:<br /><br /><i>When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams was invited to St Vladimir’s Seminary in New York to deliver a lecture and receive an honorary degree in January, Canon Kenneth Kearon----the General Secretary of the Anglican Consultative Council---telephoned the schools’ dean and made two requests.<br /><br />He asked that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori be invited to the ceremony, and ask that Anglican.TV not be permitted to film the proceedings.</i>Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-38582902654010803952010-06-17T22:47:59.565-04:002010-06-17T22:47:59.565-04:00Lapinbizzare- I am asking for permission to quote ...Lapinbizzare- I am asking for permission to quote my source on ATV.Closing Downhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00424188419413426448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-53646825832209996612010-06-17T21:57:47.198-04:002010-06-17T21:57:47.198-04:00Looks like the existence of the letter is confirme...Looks like the existence of the letter is confirmed and that Schori apparently has been asked to absent herself from the next Primates' Meeting as well as to depart the Standing Committee. Ka-boom.<br /><br />http://themcj.com/?p=12293Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.com