tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post115457187763259197..comments2023-09-03T10:27:50.770-05:00Comments on Personal Musings of Priestly Goth: Perhaps an example of how not to be ecumenicalCommunity of the Holy Trinityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-26230337358865557982007-02-07T16:29:00.000-06:002007-02-07T16:29:00.000-06:00best regards, nice info » »best regards, nice info <a href="http://www.cheap-meridia-0.info/Skad-leku-meridia.html">»</a> <a href="http://www.water-filter-7.info/tyson-401k.html">»</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154723723667093582006-08-04T15:35:00.000-05:002006-08-04T15:35:00.000-05:00Just for kicks...http://www.wfn.org/2003/09/msg000...Just for kicks...<BR/><BR/>http://www.wfn.org/2003/09/msg00097.html<BR/><BR/>But I cannot find the report itself online. It was supposed to be completed in 2004.<BR/><BR/>Pax!<BR/><BR/>Oh, right...no concelebration. Nope. And I think Larry covered that base pretty well. And I don't hold too strong a grudge against the Anglicans for saying my ordination is not valid...well, for ministry in the ECUSA at least.<BR/><BR/>But with my liturgical tastes, I hope for a dispensation! ;-)Pastoral Teamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16270975542135757124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154718084985398982006-08-04T14:01:00.000-05:002006-08-04T14:01:00.000-05:00I realised after last posting that I was answering...I realised after last posting that I was answering one of Tripp's points made at <A HREF="http://juchter.com/family-letter/?p=293#comment-1078" REL="nofollow">this blog</A> - cor, all this switching around! - but as it tied in to Reconciler I left it where it was.<BR/><BR/><I>It is our understanding that the Episcopal church is fine with open communion but would frown on concelebration.</I><BR/><BR/>As you know the Catholic world doesn't officially do open Communion but there are long-standing examples of intercommunion among churches officially in schism:<BR/><BR/>As somebody who follows Orthodox doings you probably know there is intercommunion of the laity among churches that don't concelebrate! For example it goes despite the rift, about to officially end, between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad. Another example is in the Middle East including my blog correspondent Samer al-Batal, a Melkite Greek Catholic (under Rome) from Syria. His church and their Antiochian Orthodox opposite number are exactly the same way. The laity go back and forth all the time, even baptising and chrismating each other's children (and of course there's loads of intermarriage)... but the clergy don't concelebrate, the only real division.<BR/><BR/>But this world agrees that receiving in a non-episcopal church, sorry, doesn't make sense, and you're right that RCs are not allowed to. Just like the Orthodox.Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154714270100830962006-08-04T12:57:00.000-05:002006-08-04T12:57:00.000-05:00Thanks for the link it was helpful.We have open co...Thanks for the link it was helpful.<BR/>We have open communion, but I think technically not concelebration, since only one of us presides at the altar at a time. It is our understaning that the Episcopal church is fine with open communion but would frown on concelebration.<BR/>I suppose that that might technically mean that as far as the bishop might be concerned that a proper Eucharist is in fact only celebrated once every three weeks. Though I am not exactly clear how a Eucharist celebrated by us is understood. Though I know of no prohibition of Episcopalians recieving communion celebrated in non-episcopal churches as is so for Orthodox and I would assume for Catholics.Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154699360234613152006-08-04T08:49:00.000-05:002006-08-04T08:49:00.000-05:00Here are some recent thoughts from me and two othe...<A HREF="http://anglopapist.blogspot.com/2006/08/some-random-thoughts-on-church-and.html" REL="nofollow">Here are some recent thoughts from me and two others on Vatican II.</A> Of course a 'hyper' wouldn't be having this conversation so in a way your distinction is right, Larry.<BR/><BR/>Tripp, if the Episcopal Church doesn't recognise your orders - sorry, but historically that would make sense - then have you got concelebration and open Communion at Reconciler? AFAIK there's no official intercommunion of ECUSA with the American Baptists nor with the Evangelical Covenant Church. (Those of us with long historical memories recall the Open Pulpit Canon in America, South India and the Anglican-Methodist union scheme.)Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154664676587174122006-08-03T23:11:00.000-05:002006-08-03T23:11:00.000-05:00Ordination has to do with the individual gifts rev...<I>Ordination has to do with the individual gifts revealed in the life of the believer...and the affirmation of the worshiping community. There is nothing about bishops performing this function...the affirmation.</I><BR/><BR/>As is, this is lacking in the Catholic view (sorry!) but this <I>and</I> the traditional understanding aren't mutually exclusive! I'm sure I've read something Orthodox that said something like this, something to do with the grace given through the bishop's <I>cheirotonia</I> activating what was already in the ordinand by grace of his baptism.<BR/><BR/>Re: taking it on faith, well, yes. And I understand there are two Catholic opinions on the apostles, either they were 1) bishops or 2) not bishops but above them, <I>sui generis</I>. Anyway, we know which churches have an unbroken <I>claim</I> to this succession. And this has spread so far and gone on so long that wherever the chain has broken, the church eventually has filled in the gaps. Echoes of Orthodox economy here. (Even though the church is in some grand sense 'sacrament' this is not the same as declaring ELCA and Methodist pastors the same as priests!)<BR/><BR/>Would I say that you, or women ministers, received <I>no</I> grace, no blessing of <I>any</I> kind at your ordination? No. But that's not the same as the apostolic ministry. (Another Orthodox echo: we know where the church is but dare not say where it is not.)<BR/><BR/>[pedantry] 'Bishop to priest to priest' wouldn't pass on the succession; it's bishop to bishop, though technically you're right as the bishop has the sacramental priesthood in its fulness; the order of priests historically is derived from the bishop. [/pedantry]Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154662354066472832006-08-03T22:32:00.000-05:002006-08-03T22:32:00.000-05:00So many times now...so many times I have had the w...So many times now...so many times I have had the whole apostolic tradition <I>thang</I> explained to me I still don't get it. It is so utterly beyond my experience. Ordination has to do with the individual gifts revealed in the life of the believer...and the affirmation of the worshiping community. There is nothing about bishops performing this function...the affirmation. <BR/><BR/>At my ordination, all gathered extended their hands to bless me in my vocation...ordained or not, Baptist or not. <BR/><BR/>So, I get lost in specific witness of the succession. It feels, I know this is perhaps much, arbitrary to me. Do you KNOW that the hands have been, well, handed down from bishop to priest to priest to priest? No. You take it on faith. The historical actuality is not as important as the faithful intention.<BR/><BR/>But I am still confused.Tripp Hudginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02987346084472861229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154660022361281982006-08-03T21:53:00.000-05:002006-08-03T21:53:00.000-05:00Oh I said "hyper Traditionalist" to make the disti...Oh I said "hyper Traditionalist" to make the distincition from what I have understood your position to be. So, hearing an implied criticism of Vatican II from you was unexpected.Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154646003355436392006-08-03T18:00:00.000-05:002006-08-03T18:00:00.000-05:00Not so sure about the 'hyper' part (though the fre...Not so sure about the 'hyper' part (though the frequency and length of these comments may suggest that) but you could see me as a sub-species of traditionalist.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Tripp, I'm onto your game, running me round to wear me down. :) A chat room would be nice or better still sitting down with a couple rounds of drinks or a bottle of good Georgian wine like the Russians do (I love Kindzmarauli). You don't strike me as a teetotalling Baptist.<BR/><BR/>As I wrote in The Family Letter nowhere in <I>scriptura</I> does it say <I>sola</I> so the default is tradition, and as I wrote in Hoosier Musings of course God isn't limited to the visible church and holy orders but they are his normal means of grace. Of course the priest doesn't save you; Christ does. He's only a link in a connexion to Christ through the apostolic ministry.Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154640065155763552006-08-03T16:21:00.000-05:002006-08-03T16:21:00.000-05:00YF, we have you running from one blog to another. ...YF, we have you running from one blog to another. Let's set up a chat room!<BR/><BR/>;-)<BR/><BR/>What is or is not necessary for salvation is always the issue. Sola scriptura? The Tradition? You see, this is what hooks us as well. Since no priest can save me, who cares if that minister is female or male? I ain't no Donatist, you know. So, the sacrament reveals itself. My salvation belongs to God.<BR/><BR/>Now, if someone can show me the theotic failure consistant with a female presider at the eucharist...maybe I'll consider.Tripp Hudginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02987346084472861229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154638734053901792006-08-03T15:58:00.000-05:002006-08-03T15:58:00.000-05:00YF,Your second coment does remind me that the ques...YF,<BR/>Your second coment does remind me that the question of development in the church and in particular in church doctrine is part of the puzzle here for me.<BR/>I did not mention it because I believe it was a red herring in the face of Cardinal Kasper's comments. Though, I think it is on its own a valid question. Because clearly things developed, and just as clearly to me this doesn't mean all of us should just make it all up as we go along.<BR/>One of the reason's I actually believe the Tradition may possibly (if improbably) support woman's ordination is that when I read the arguments from the RC and Orthodox on the issue, at some point it seems that they stop arguing from tradition and begin to pull things out of thin air that simply don't make sense to me, usually bordering on biological essentialism.<BR/>But I am getting off topic.<BR/>If a change has happened in me in the years since I graduated from university and as I journeyed through seminary is that I found the attempting to decide what was core and what was 'peripheral'/adiaphora and became something of a maximalist myself. I just shake my head at those who ask "but is it really necesary for salvation?" I don't know but it might be necesary for ones salvation to stop asking what is simply absolutely necesary and just embrace salvation!Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154638001227601702006-08-03T15:46:00.000-05:002006-08-03T15:46:00.000-05:00Young Fogey,I think you lost me in your first comm...Young Fogey,<BR/>I think you lost me in your first comment. Partially because I am not so conversant with all that goes on in the RC.<BR/>And also, I have only recently come across criticism within the RC of Vatican to from other than hyper traditionalists. One of my best friends would read me portions of Vatican II when we use to have the Protestant Catholic discussions and point out how it continued the tradition. He also loved to get me to read Pope John Paul II encyclicals.<BR/>But that is neither here nor there.<BR/>Lastly, I dislike the labels liberal and conservative. So, I suppose Braaten may be a conservative Lutheran but thats not why I find him persuasive.Community of the Holy Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15327079170088324442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154617928575894962006-08-03T10:12:00.000-05:002006-08-03T10:12:00.000-05:00Larry, I posted as well.www.anglobaptist.org/blogLarry, I posted as well.<BR/><BR/>www.anglobaptist.org/blogTripp Hudginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02987346084472861229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154611127398427732006-08-03T08:18:00.000-05:002006-08-03T08:18:00.000-05:00Fisking the statement a few more things jumped out...Fisking the statement a few more things jumped out at me:<BR/><BR/><I>What are the criteria by which some developments (some growths in understanding, as it were) are seen as legitimate - the adoption of compulsory celibacy, a distinctively monastic discipline, for all ordained priests or the Marian Dogmas of 1854 and 1952, for example - while of others, like the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, Cardinal Kasper declares that 'the Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to [revise its current position]'?</I><BR/><BR/>Celibacy is discipline not doctrine and the Marian doctrines (and that's 1950 - 'blessed be her glorious Assumption') don't contradict earlier teaching.<BR/><BR/><I>We note that</I> Dominus Iesus<I> (2000), continued to regard Anglican churches as separated quasi-ecclesial communities. <B>Rome regards the Eastern Orthodox as a 'church' on the grounds, in that document, that they 'objectively intend reunion' with Rome.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Do they? Makes me wonder how many Orthodox these bishops know! Seriously, I think there are three criteria by which Rome recognises 'churchness', basic credal orthodoxy, an unbroken claim of apostolic succession and - here's the deal-breaker that begat <I>Apostolicæ Curæ</I> - uninterrupted orthodox teaching about the Eucharist ('valid intention', the 'full and integral' mystery and so on), all of which the Christian East (and not just the Orthodox) has.<BR/><BR/>Imported Old Catholic orders in the early C20 made <I>AC</I> a dead letter for Anglo-Catholics until relatively recent controversial moves from Anglicans sent ecumenical progress down the pan.<BR/><BR/><I>The 'filioque' clause in the Creed is to this day regarded by Eastern Orthodox Christians as an unwarranted Roman addition to the creed of the universal church.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you can certainly imagine the Orthodox reaction to the recent controversial moves of Anglicans! Interestingly +Durham and +Salisbury don't get into that in their anti-Roman roll here. I think I remember reading something from Schmemann describing a certain move as 'the death of all dialogue'...<BR/><BR/><I>In discussing the source of the Church's authority, the Cardinal comes close at times to saying that it is only through the lens of the Church's tradition that scripture can be read.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes.<BR/><BR/><I>In the end, the arbiter is the</I> sensus fidei<I>, the entire body of the faithful, as was pointed out to Pius IX in 1848 by the Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical: "the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves". The faithful are the ultimate guardians of Tradition and the faith.</I><BR/><BR/>Right, and those patriarchs, and I dare say Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), believed that a sign of the true <I>sensus</I> (that the local bishop and gathered church are the <I>Catholica</I> in its fulness) is non-contradiction. As I wrote recently to Fr Young in his blog, a Catholic/Protestant fault-line is what we consider 'core' (and the Orthodox are maximalist about that!) and 'peripheral'/adiaphora.<BR/><BR/><I>This is not to be cavalier with tradition...</I><BR/><BR/>He said, being cavalier with tradition of course...Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8605839.post-1154580269497826242006-08-02T23:44:00.000-05:002006-08-02T23:44:00.000-05:00First of all thanks again for the mention. I put y...First of all thanks again for the mention. I put your URL back in my blog's links yesterday. I'd taken it out months ago as I thought you'd stopped writing here!<BR/><BR/>In spite of everything that discussion seems to have come to a good end, ceasing to be an argument some time back, and even migrated first to Reverend Ref's blog and then to Fr Mark J's where my acquaintance Dr Munn (Warwickensis) is keeping the side up amid some impressive theological heavy lifting.<BR/><BR/>Reading your blog, some time ago I cottoned onto the fact that at heart you're not a relativist but Christian - Reconciler strikes me from here as more Taizé-like.<BR/><BR/>I have a lot of respect for the Catholic strain in conservative Lutheranism - not only you but <I>Conversi ad Dominum</I> are in my links. In ways I'm more at home among them than among the conservative Vatican II RCs where Kimel has dropped anchor, even though on paper I've more in common with the latter. (BTW, small Anglican world - about 20 years ago Kimel was the rector of my Central Church friends Charley and Byrd at the Tune: Kings Lynn blog... he officiated at their wedding!)<BR/><BR/>Goes without saying I was disappointed in but by now unsurprised by Bps Wright and Stancliffe's statement - conservative (!) and Broad spokesmen for the C of E giving an un-Catholic answer essentially for the reason you described. (Flipping the bird to Catholicism East and West.)<BR/><BR/>Of course the Catholic world (and I'm not specifically talking about RC) says there's already a consensus on those controversial issues. And it's a poorly kept secret that I agree with that. The trick is: how can one do justice to your end, to be charitable, without falling into the errors of 1) the shrinking mainline merger into mush (which you've also dismissed here - <I>'a certain type of ecumenism that simply wants the ecumenical endeavor to affirm everyones opinions or at least every groups opinions about what it means to be Christian and the church'</I>) or 2) 'spirit of Vatican II'-ness? (Do you really want to swop the BCP and Anglican and Lutheran vesture, architecture, hymnody, etc. for ICEL, etc.?)<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to give an answer tonight, just putting the question on the table.<BR/><BR/>All I can say for now is where you (one) find the Catholic faith in its fulness, go. Never mind what the sign on the door says. ('As long as it's a Wal-Mart' doesn't work for church, even though the sacraments are objective, etc. No, I can't explain that well, for which you probably are grateful.)<BR/><BR/>As I wrote to you before, I won't try to tell you exactly how to do that on the ground level where you are but pray and discern.<BR/><BR/>As for women's ordination what you wrote in theory isn't that different to the improbabilist position ('what does the whole Church Catholic say?'), one of two Catholic opinions on the matter, the other being the impossibilist one favoured by the late Pope.<BR/><BR/><I>Oremus pro invicem.</I><BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>John BeelerEcgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.com