Friday, May 21, 2010

What is ++Rowan up to

The usual suspects suspect ++Rowan is going to do nothing about a response to +Mary Glasspool's consecration.

I think the contrary.

++Rowan knows that the Primates Meeting early next year is likely to have a welter of "Got headache. Sorry cannot come." RSVPs if TEC's Primate is not disinvited, or similar.

I think he is getting the wording right on a crucial announcement. One that he need not hurry as there are plenty of months to go.

Whether the announcement is that ++KJS is actually disinvited; or that all the others are invited to a pre-Primates Meeting, it will be significant. And it will signal that ++Rowan gets it that the Communion has, perhaps, one chance left of a semblance of its former life and strength continuing into the future.



Rev. Z said...

I have to be honest here Peter and say that i am really struggling with the apparent silence from the ABC.
My frustration is especially heightened when comments are being made by ++Katharine Jefferts Schori which claim this issue is more acceptable to the communion, and causing less division than it was seven years ago, with the "consecration" of Gene Robinson.

It seems that those who are hurting because of the Glasspool decision aren't the only ones taking the silence of the ABC as approval...

I pray and hope that ++Rowan will issue a statement soon, its not like he didn't know the "consecration" was going to take place! He could, in all reality have had a carefull prepared statement ready to go to press on the very same day. My patience is failing, as is my confidence in our institution, Praise be that the Body of Christ won't fail, and that God is faithful.

Rev. Z

Peter Carrell said...

Hello Rev. Z
I understand the struggle ...

Kurt said...

Well, “Rev.” Z, like it or not, Gene Robinson is a bishop in the Holy Catholic Church.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Anonymous said...

"Well, “Rev.” Z, like it or not, Gene Robinson is a bishop in the Holy Catholic Church."

No doubt in the same way that Judas Iscariot was an apostle.

Not to forget that other bon mot:
'He crept into the church, just as Pontius Pilate crept into the Creed'


Rev. Z said...

Sorry Kurt, I can't agree with you. The fourth clause of Resolution 1.10 (Lambeth 1998) 'cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;'

I think that this makes it pretty clear, at least from where I stand. Gene Robinson may be dressing up as a bishop, he may even may be acting functionally as a bishop, but I am unwilling to conceed that he or Mary Glasspool are legitimate bishops in the Body of Christ.
A personal hang up maybe... but I respect the decision of Lambeth as well, knowing what hurt the blatant disregard of 1.10 by TEC is causing to many provinces, dioceses, parishes and individuals.


Anonymous said...

Whereas the blog owner of this site is quick to reply to those with whom he disagrees, I am hoping that his not responding to “Rev Z” is not an indication of his agreement with this patent nonsense and total misreading and misrepresentation of Lambeth 1.10.

It is clear that many in the anti-gay camp are theologically ill-informed (as I’m sure others in the pro camp are), but to call oneself a “Rev” here and present a Donatist position is astonishing.

Peter, in his particular context in New Zealand’s South Island/Te Wai Pounamu should be one of the first to leap to the defence of the validity of episcopal orders when “sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments” with reference to his much-loved Articles, in this case Article 26.

Unlike some, through the Donatist controversy, the catholic Church did not abandon moral standards for clergy or laity, nor cease disciplining clergy for immoral behavior. However the Article is clear: the sacraments of immoral clergy, even unrepentant immoral clergy, are still valid.

Not responding to “Rev Z’s” theological misunderstanding tends towards increasing the theological confusion of those who are neo-Donatists in this current situation.

אף לא אחד

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous at 10.42 am,

If you would like the blog owner of a blog to do what you think they should do by way of perfectly responding to each and every comment ... please start your own.

I note that Rev. Z says his view might be a 'personal hang up'. I do not quite see how that means he should be critiqued for failing to understand the Donatist crisis, etc.

Finally, there are aspects of this post which are ambiguous in meaning and this one only just scrapes through the moderation process. I give you warning that further posts along these lines will simply be rejected and there will be no explanation given. (Ditto to any other commenter who comments on this warning).

Anonymous said...

Peter, why do you think it is inappropriate to expect clergy to understand the theology of the sacraments and hence the Donatist controversy? I would have thought that was essential prior to ordination?

Rather than criticise the person who comments, please be clear yourself. Is Gene Robinson a bishop? a) yes b) no.

If you think your original post is ambiguous, why not rework it until you are satisfied with it before posting it. I could not see what is ambiguous in the post. In your comment you give the impression that you are letting guest posters onto your blog without your say-so?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous at 7.42 am

First, I need to say that I, unfortunately, used a misleading word in my previous comment to Anonymous at 10.42 am: I used 'post' when I should have used 'comment'. I was referring to that comment as being ambiguous rather than to my original post.

I would have thought that Rev Z's comments are fairly clear and do not involve implications as to whether he does or does not understand the Donatist controversy, Article 26 and the like. His point is not whether Bishop X or Y as a (legitimate) bishop is performing sacramentally valid actions while standing accused of culpability on some matter of morality or heresy or whatever. His point is whether Bishop X or Y is a legitimate bishop in the first place, and his argument rests on a statement in the Windsor Report. Thus, if you do not agree with Rev Z then your argument is with the claim that +Gene Robinson is not a legitimate bishop, and does not involve questions as to whether Rev Z understands the Donatist controversy or not. Since Rev Z, currently, is not further engaging, I am not sure how your argument proceeds. (As in my previous comment, I observe again that Rev Z speaks of the possibility that his argument involves a 'personal hang up', which I understand to mean that he recognises that he might stand alone in not recognising the legitimacy of Gene Robinson's episcopacy.)

In my own case, since you ask, Gene Robinson is a bishop. My general view on this blog is that while I personally do not agree with a number of decisions made within TEC, it is a legitimate member of the Anglican Communion and we need to find solutions for Anglican issues which include TEC rather than exclude it. But if it excluded itself, I would not be rushing after it, saying 'come back, we can work something out'. My disagreements with TEC mean that I view some bishops around the world as legitimate Anglican bishops exercising valid ministries which TEC itself does not recognise.