The Rt. Rev. Keith Whitmore has agreed to serve as consulting bishop to the reorganizing Episcopal Diocese of Quincy in the period prior to a special synod at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Peoria, Ill., on April 4.
The reorganizing synod became necessary after a majority of clergy and lay delegates voted last November to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church. The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy, resigned Nov. 1, six days before the synod convened.
Does this mean that all the “remain Episcopal” clergy in Quincy Diocese are “Affirming Catholics?” Whitmore is certainly the “poster boy” for the Aff Cats in the USA (and when I last visited the website of Christ Church, New Haven, CT, which is a flagship Aff Cat parish he was listed as its Patron or President). Certainkly Whitmore is pro-SS and as bishop of Eau Claire, he introduced WO into that previously unspotted diocese, formerly the diocese of +William Wantland and +Stanley Atkins.
Open your eyes, Quincy, for what’s coming at you.
Just to clarify, Dr, Tighe, when we see, “Affirming Catholic,” I take it we should read, “not Catholic.”
If the REAL Diocese of Quincy is so small, just try to imagine how small the RUMP Diocese of Quincy will be!
The former Archdeacon of Yorkshire, George Austin, once described the “Affirming Catholics” as believing in “Boys in bed, girls on the altar and ‘Mother’ on the Throne of God.” In other words, they support WO, SS and other theological notions that one would be hard-pressed to discover in real historical Catholicism.
For Christ Church and “Affirming Catholicism,” see:
http://www.christchurchnh.org/Anglo.htm
“Christ Church serves as the national office for Affirming Anglican Catholicism in the United States . Affirming Anglican Catholicism is a new international Catholic movement in The U.S., Canada , and the British Isles . The international patron is the Rt. Hon. and Most Rev’d Rowan Williams, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury . The American patron is The Most Rev’d Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church. The organization promotes a progressive Catholicism that incorporates orthodox theology into a modern, inclusive social praxis. More information may be found at http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.
Under the recent rectorship of Charles S Gilman, Jr. (1998-2002) Christ Church celebrated the hundredth anniversary of Henry Vaughan’s church, a masterpiece of architecture, with a year of festive Solemn Masses culminating with a rededication of the building by the Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev’d Frank Griswold, on the Eve of Pentecost. Beginning in 1998, the church provided offices and a student center for the Episcopal Church at Yale, a chaplaincy which maintains independent worship services on the Yale campus and which provides pastoral support to undergraduates. Christ Church became the national office for Affirming Anglican Catholicism, an organization of Catholic Anglicans in England, Canada, and America which studies and encourages the compatibility of progressive social issues and orthodox Christian theology. The Undercroft Bookstore was begun by our curate, the Rev’d Susan McCone, providing a good resource of often hard-to-find works of theology, as well as the national sale of Christ Church’s unique blend of incense. With Berkeley Divinity School, the church hosted “The Holiness of Beauty,†a national conference of Affirming Catholicism focused on the connection of spirituality and the arts. Under the guidance of the Rt. Rev’d Keith Whitmore, Bishop of Eau Claire, the Vestry committed itself to the goals of maintaining Christ Church as a national center of progressive Anglo-Catholicism, doubling church membership, and both growing and lessening dependence on the church endowment. These goals continue to be pursued by the parish leadership under Fr. Cobb’s direction.”
Is the Presiding Plaintiff filed any lawsuits in Illinois?
Phil (#2)- Please also read “Affirming Catholic” as “not Anglo Catholic.”
Cennydd (#3)- I suspect it has taken TEC so long to get around to this because they a) had to figure out where Quincy was after looking for it in the diocese of Springfield and not finding it. And I suspect it took a while to piece together any number of remnant “parishes” as the diocese seemed a relatively cohesive group.
Tj, the REAL Diocese of Quincy has had financial problems, to be sure, but you can also be sure that they’re in good hands. The RUMP diocese, however, will have no problem with money because TEC will throw enough at them to get them started and propped up for a while, but when the bills start coming due and TEC’s finances drop like a rock, where will that leave them? FLAT BROKE!
Of what is left of Qunicy, they should merge into Chicago.
I would suggest Springfield, but I am sure the higher-ups would not want someone with orthodox leanings helping them.
Jerry Miner was Rector of New Haven, and before that a former curate at Good Shepherd Rosemont (PA). While there he upheld real Anglo-Catholicism and started that way at New Haven until he was ‘outed’. As the website states, under Fr. Miner the parish
“began to lead new ministries for the spiritual formation and Christian witness of gays and lesbians in the parish and larger community”
But apparently his predecessor had had women as priests visit the altar. Jerry also adopted the use of the 1979 BCP, abandoning the Anglican Missal which most Anglo-Catholic Parishes on the east coast used.
Jerry died of AIDS around 1998 or so.
stjohnsrector: Jerald Miner died in 1996. This is on the AffCath website:
Fr. Miner, formerly rector of Christ Church, New Haven, died from complications due to AIDs on All Saints Day, 1996.
http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org/us/events.html
I have read of only three parishes that have voted to stay TEC: St Paul in Peoria, St James in Griggsville, and St James in Lewistown. They had a total of 532 Members in 2007. Statmann
Hmmm……just 532 people in the new RUMP Diocese of Quincy in 2007? How many do they have now, I wonder…..if they want to form a new diocese? In OUR diocese, we’d call this number a large parish!
#1, sorry but you are just flat wrong in your statement the Bp Whitmore is pro-SS. No way; I know him well. He has gone through quite a journey to be where he is today. I would implore you not disparage him when you don’t know what you are saying is correct. If you talked with him you would withdraw that statement immediately, and I would request you to do so.
What is SS? The same thing as SSB?
Re: #8, 9:
When I was in New Haven, Fr. Kibitz (Rector 1949-1978) was getting on in years, but he was solidly traditionalist Anglo-Catholic. His curate, David Boulton (Rector 1978-1983) was a “closeted” homosexual who threw off the cloak of concealment once he became Rector, and within no time at all female clergypersons were “celebrating Mass,” at first on weekdays, and then on Sundays as well. At some point (probably in the mid-90s) the interim rector was a woman. It’s yet another instance of Facilis descensus Averni.
Re: #12,
I am happy if it should be the case that I am wrong; I was told that hen favored SS on good authority years ago. But if he doesn’t, why has he been so cozy with the Aff Cats, one of whose principal planks is their favor for SS? It doesn’t argue for much good sense on his part if he patronizes an organization whose goals he rejects.
SS = Sanctified Sodomy
Re #14 and the 1949-1978 rectorate at CCNH, I think you would get a very different story than “solidly traditionalist” if you asked a Yale undergrad invited to church functions at the beginning of that period.
Sorry, I meant to sign that YC ’52
#14, I assume because of its close connection to high church Anglo-Catholicism, which he is very much a part of. But whoever told you he looked with favor on SS or SSBs was just wrong. He is an institutionalist, I believe, but he did not vote for +VGR and will not vote for SSBs, regardless of our diocesan’s stand. It is our understanding that he was brought here to minister to the significant “conservative” portion of our diocese in Atlanta. I can tell you that he is “reasserting” through and through. Please be careful about this kind of talk. He preaches the faith once delivered; I know; he has preached it to me and our men’s group on several occasions. I can’t tell you how sad it makes me to hear someone talk about him like this.
Meanwhile on the other side of the country, a new diocese is being formed:
“NORTH FLORIDA: Former Episcopalians to Form New Anglican Diocese
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
2/12/2009
A new Anglican diocese is expected to emerge out of talks among former Episcopalians who have either been deposed or left The Diocese of Florida as well as others as part of the on-going realignment in the Anglican Communion.
“We have the options of applying to become a diocese immediately or to become a ‘diocese in formation’ under Anglican Church in North America (ACNA. We hope to have just over 20 parishes represented there when we meet” he told VOL.”There are advantages and disadvantages for each option, but there a clear consensus that we will become a diocese as soon as we can do so responsibly. AMiA and REC parishes will be a part of the process, while remaining under their current jurisdictions, with the commitment to allbeing partners in local ministry.”
“The Anglican Alliance of North Florida and South Georgia will meet February 28 to begin the process of forming a diocese with some 20 rectors expected to be in attendance with two more congregations who may join us soon,” said The Rev. Neil G. Lebhar, rector of Church of the Redeemer (Anglican) in Jacksonville, whose parish is under the ecclesiastical authority of The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda.
Lebhar said there had already been strong ecumenical cooperation among a number of ministries including work that has been done together in Anglican 4th Day (previously Cursillo), Dynamos (previously Happening), a summer camp, continuing education, clergy fellowship, and Alliance Pentecost worship gatherings.
22 Congregations with 47 Clergy presently make up the Anglican Alliance.”
http://www.anglicanalliancenf.org/congregations.htm
Obviously, I have trust in Bishop Whitmore.
This time of anger and quarrelings must end.
As adult children of the Lord surely we can be
civil to one another. We must not be enemies
but friends. Or at least Adult Christians.
Christians who want acheive pure doctine and
perfect behavior will be disappointed over time
because of our original sin.
Meanwhile, the Cathedral Parish of St. Paul,
Peoria, is focused on Jesus Christ, avoiding
the politics of the church, and cares for our
widows and orphans. Actually, we are growing
both in spirit, numbers, and money. Relieved of
the current church controversy, our parish’
thrives.
Robert Dedmon,
Dean and Rctor
[blockquote] Relieved of the current church controversy, our parish’
thrives. [/blockquote]
The parish’s stat page is found [url=http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_221200920203AM.pdf ]here[/url]. Attendance is down in 2007 by 32% since 2002. Now, after the vote, how many are still left in the pews?
When the lawsuits are flying by Robert Dedmon’s new boss (whomever Ms Schori will pick after she actually finds it on a map), we will see if they have been “relieved” of the controversy.
Now see, RobRoy! Didn’t Robert Dedmon just say that “the time of anger and quarrellings must end?”
And this parish is busy “avoiding the politics of the church.”
Robert Dedmon has informed you that the parish is “thriving.”
And you have to go and insert a church stats link, a church stats that is clearly divisive and does nothing but stir up trouble and cause readers to realize that Robert Dedmon interprets “thriving” in a far far far more spiritual manner than someone who is clearly as angry as you.
18.,
I’m afraid you need to get used to it. The age of Ecclesiastical McCarthyism (from both sides) is upon us. It doesn’t take any kind of evidence to smear Bp. Wantland… Just innuendo and gossip. He might be associated with AffCath… So therefore, he supports ALL of its positions? Wow. THat’s all the resonse I can reasonable muster
Isaac (23)
No one has cast any aspersions, or even made any mention, of Bishop Wantland. The bishop being discussed is Bishop Whitmore, who I believe succeeded Bishop Wantland in Eau Claire, and is associated with the Affirming Catholic movement.
I will say, on behalf of some Affirming Catholics I know, that many of the older ones are appalled by what has happened to their movement. It started as a pseudo (Anglo) catholic group which accepted women in the priesthood. Many did not realize how many more things their leadership intended to “affirm” over the years. Where Bishop Whitmore falls in this spectrum, I have no idea.
However, there is only one diocese of Quincy. The attempt of 815 to form another is a violation of Catholic order- something Bishop Whitmore should understand very well. There is nothing in either TEC’s constitution or that of the diocese of Quincy that says the diocese must be a participant in GC. The fact that they have opted to participate in another provincial synod does not mean they are not the Anglican diocese in that vicinity.
Affirming Catholicism was begun, in England, in the late 1980s by Richard Holloway (once an Anglo-Catholic priest, later Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and now a “Spongian” agnostic), Jeffrey John and Rowan Williams, together with the Rectors or Vicars of two or three central-London “gay-friendly” Anglo-Catholic parishes. From its very inception being pro-SS was as central a feature of its outlook as being pro-WO; and I assume that the same must have been the case with its american offshoot, “Affirming Anglican Catholicism.”
I still can make no sense of Bishop Whitcomb’s patrinage of AAC if he is opposed to SS; it makes no more sense than serving as spiritual director to the employees of a purportedly “Christian brothel.”
24.,
I apologize for the error; but my concern still stands. Bp. Whitmore is the President of AffCath. in the US. Therefore, he must agree with [i]every single point of AffCath?[/i] We’re allowed to insinuate, without evidence, and based only on an ‘reliable source’ at the ear of Dr. Tighe, that Bp. Whitmore believes in “Boys in bed, girls on the altar and ‘Mother’ on the Throne of God?†Esp. when his voting record suggests otherwise (having voted against DO39 and Bp. Robinson’s consecration, and FOR Bp Ackerman’s resolution), and when someone who has been taught by Bp. Whitmore vouches or his teaching. Is this really what “love one another, as I have loved you” looks like? If this is what it looks like, then I’m out. That monastery in Syria is looking inviting.
Disagree with AffCath. Agree with AffCath. We can have that discussion. It’s above my paygrade, but we can have it. But to drag someone’s name through the mud, on an influential, public website, without evidence beyond “what I heard” is gossip. It’s Macarthyism dressed in orthodox clothes. At this point, whether or not Bp. Whitmore supports SSB or not is beyond the scope of the debate. Let him speak for himself, and not rumour and insinuation.
[quote]I still can make no sense of Bishop Whitcomb’s patrinage of AAC if he is opposed to SS[/quote]
Because in the non-academic world, most of us can live without the Asperger’s-like insistance on internal consistancy. There are lots of things my Union does and supports that I disagree with; but I still pay my dues.
I understand the tactical and legal reasons behind re-constituted diocese in Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburg: the legal fees may well be re-couped by selling off the property. But Quincy was always tiny. Long before the current troubles, I read of plans to merge the diocese into Chicago or Springfield when Bp. Ackerman retired. ASA was about 900 in 2007 and never much more than maybe 1300 (the tables with hard numbers seem to be gone now, so I am relying on the charts). What will ASA be now in the new TEC diocese? I read the whole article (such as it is) and found no hard numbers. Is enough property in play to justify the legal costs, or is this strictly a propaganda move?
[i]Bp. Whitmore is the President of AffCath. in the US. Therefore, he must agree with every single point of AffCath?[/i]
He should, otherwise why is he the president of the organization? If he doesn’t, then he needs to publicly work to correct what he sees as errors or he isn’t doing his job.
I’ve spoken with Bp. Whitemore personally on a number of occasions, and while I’m not sure about his voting record, I can report a few details. First, in my conversations with him, he’s mostly taken the view that the early and medieval church were mostly silent about same-sex issues, and if they raised a fuss, it might be taken to be hypocritical due to the reputed abuses in monastic communities. Somewhere, folks like Augustine and John Chrysostom are just shaking their heads, but I digress. Second, he’s firmly (and I mean [i]firmly[/i]) of a mind that TEC will win every property dispute in the end, be they in Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, Quincy, or most anywhere. Third, he tends to be of the opinion that a given diocese could theoretically reach an agreement where it sold church property to a parish that wished to leave, at the discretion of the bishop of that diocese.
Having said all that, he’s a kind, courteous bishop who puts great value in the pastoral implications of any decisions he makes, and he’s always made a surprisingly (because of the degree) conscientious effort not to offend me intentionally. I’m in one of the Continuing Churches, and so I’ve been thankful for it. It’s more than I can say of a lot of TEC clergy. I may disagree with him thoroughly on, oh, [i]most everything,[/i] and I would agree that he’s contributing to the stuff that’s tearing the Anglican Communion apart, but I wouldn’t ever characterize him in the malicious or spiteful terms used here.
Oof. Whitmore, too. Apologies, Bp. Keith, if you happen to read this. :>
After a bit of research, it is evident that Dr. Tighe’s commentary on Affirming Catholics is correct, and mine….well, not so much. I apologize for “shooting from the hip” and not doing a bit of reading up before posting.
It is interesting that I know a couple people who claim to have been “affirming catholics” since the late 70s (co-incident with WO)- so I do wonder if the term has been around longer than the organization. Or, alternately, if there are not a number of members who really don’t know what the organization represents. (And just for the record, no, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of that organization)
RE: “It’s Macarthyism dressed in orthodox clothes.”
Oh, let’s not hold back with niceties. I would go so far as to say it is Hitlerism dressed in orthodox clothes.
Stalinism too.
Maybe a dash of PolPot.
I mean, the gall of those orthodox. Discerning a person’s views based on what organizations with clearly stated beliefs that person is president of.
What next? Looking at things they have signed or written? Reading their sermons?
Fascism.
Simple fascism.
[quote]I mean, the gall of those orthodox. Discerning a person’s views based on what organizations with clearly stated beliefs that person is president of.
What next? Looking at things they have signed or written? Reading their sermons? [/quote]
Well, that’s precisely my point… No one has looked at things Bp. Whitmore has signed or written, though his voting record is open and availabe at Louie Crew’s website, and strikes me as being one orthodox would be happy with. All that’s been said is AffCath is bad, therefore, Bp. Whitmore is bad. It isn’t Hitlerian, because I don’t believe reasserters are advocating for lebenstraum or the mass extermination of Jews. It isn’t Stalinst, because I don’t think anyone is setting up a personality cult in reasserterdom. It isn’t Pol Pot, because reasserters aren’t wanting to return to an agrarian communal society. If it was any of those those things, then I suppose it would be worth spending the time to discuss them.
However, the ‘prosecution by rumour and insinuation’ that went on from [i]the very first comment[/i] is McCarthyist… There is no attempt made to actually look at Bp. Whitmore’s record. There is no attempt made to actually hear and reflect on what Billy says from first-hand experience, likewise with Hippo Regius. Rumour and insinuation on one hand, first-hand accounts and documentary evidence on the other. The choice to make Rumour and Insinuation the keystone of judgement is below us as Christians, and it is Ecclesiastical McCarthyism.
Sorry Isaac, but the look at the clearly stated beliefs of Affirming Catholics — which all of us on this blog have done over the past five years — and then the fact that Whitmore is the chair of the organization in North America is not at all “rumour and insinuation.” It is fact.
For thousands of years now people have discovered other people’s beliefs by the organizations that they join and lead, for crying out loud. You’re not going to be able to forbid that and pretend as if doing it is some sort of “McCarthyism.”
Here — let’s take a look at what the web site says they want to do. Billy — this is something you can ask Keith Whitmore about the next time you see him:
[blockquote]Because of the Incarnation, encouraging the full insights of a catholic feminism.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Genuine catholicism means full inclusion of members of the Church in the threefold ministry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.[/blockquote]
Whitmore would be a gross hypocrite if were the chair of such an organization and didn’t believe what are principle planks of the Affirming Catholic [sic] position. Thankfully all of us recognize that Affirming “Catholics” aren’t Anglo-Catholics — there is a blessedly stark and compelling difference between the two.
I suspect what you don’t like is that people know what Whitmore believes based on what the Affirming Catholics believe — and you simply don’t like people around here frankly acknowledging that that makes Whitmore a believer in heresy of rather obvious nature.
But that’s really a theological disagreement and has nothing to do with “Ecclesiastical McCarthyism [sic]” at all, which is merely the name you came up with to describe people-who-know-what-Whitmore-believes-and-acknowledge-it-for-the-corruption-that-it-is.
You probably should have started out with your theological arguments rather than the sophistic device you attempted to use.
Just to pound who and what Bishop Whitmore believes more into the ground here’s a quote of his comments from back in 2007:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79405_ENG_HTM.htm
[blockquote]”Bishop Keith Whitmore, president of Affirming Catholicism, said “that since the Episcopal Church is the only national province of Anglicanism to have committed itself [at the recent General Convention] to the process of developing an ‘Anglican Covenant’ about which the Windsor Report spoke, Affirming Catholicism wants to influence the conversation about communion and covenant in a positive way.”
The hope, he said, is to broaden the definition of terms now being used restrictively; terms such as communion, covenant and orthodoxy.
“We think that both theologically and historically they have meanings that are more hospitable, more encompassing and more loving than is now implied by the way they are being used,” said Whitmore. “The two conferences in 2007 are designed to allow for this type of conversation and conversion to take place.”[/blockquote]
Note his baldly decontructionist hopes.
I’m sure he’s a very nice, pastoral, and loving man, though.
I did look at Louie Crew’s website (first thing). [url=http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bishops/0367.html ]Here is what it said[/url]:
He voted against “Blessing of Same-Gender Unions to be added to Book of Occasional Services (8th resolve to D039)” and the approval of Gene Robinson.
But he voted for “Recognizing and affirming fidelity in relationships outside of marriage (D039).”
If I have sexual relations outside of marriage once, it is a sin, but if I keep doing it, it is not? That is so twisted. Can we then apply this principle to all forms of sin?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is president of “Affirming Duckianity,” but sometimes, inconsistently, votes against “Duckianity,” then I think that it is reasonable to conclude that it is a duck, albeit perhaps either a mentally challenged duck or a serpentinely devious one. And is one wants to substitute “Heresy” for “Duckianity” where it appears above, well, hey, I’m cool with that, and suspect my little example would lose nothing by way of accuracy in the “translation.”
Of course, from my own individual perspective, +Whitmore’s support for WO gives the whole show away in and of itself. Even if he were a paragon of “orthodoxy” in every other respect (although it beats me how one could be any more “partially orthodox” than “partially pregnant”) obtruding a bishop of such views on Quincy rather gives the game away — doesn’t it, Dean Dedmon (and Billy)?
[quote]For thousands of years now people have discovered other people’s beliefs by the organizations that they join and lead, for crying out loud. You’re not going to be able to forbid that and pretend as if doing it is some sort of “McCarthyism.†[/quote]
So it’s OK for me to call the Pope a Nazi now? Esp. since it was an organization he joined and was a part of?
Of course not. Because impugning to B16 the beliefs of the Nazis is ludicrious, because the evidence of his own beliefs is different to that of the Nazis. Judging someone by their association (no matter how long it’s gone on) is wrong. Full stop.
[quote]Whitmore would be a gross hypocrite if were the chair of such an organization and didn’t believe what are principle planks of the Affirming Catholic [sic] position.[/quote]
Or he could be a dissenter. Once again, in the real world, people work with and in and lead organizations whose principle planks they may dissent from. I’m sure there are tons of Anglo-Catholics who have difficulty with Gafcon naming the Articles as a theological basis fo Anglican renewal. But we don’t accuse them of being closet Calvinists or low churchman because of their association with low church and evangelicals in Gafcon. This is silliness. Lazy silliness.
[quote]I suspect what you don’t like is that people know what Whitmore believes based on what the Affirming Catholics believe—and you simply don’t like people around here frankly acknowledging that that makes Whitmore a believer in heresy of rather obvious nature. [/quote]
No, what I object to is people impugning to Bp. Whitmore beliefs he [i]may or may not have[/i] without the evidence to support it. He’s voted against SSB. He’s voted against SSB being put in the BOS. He’s voated against Gene Robinson, and he’s voted FOR Bp. Ackerman’s resoultion. Based on a single relationship to a signle organization you’re willing to throw all of his voting record, the first-person accounts from someone who’s been taught by him? Wha?
[quote]But that’s really a theological disagreement and has nothing to do with “Ecclesiastical McCarthyism [sic]†at all, which is merely the name you came up with to describe people-who-know-what-Whitmore-believes-and-acknowledge-it-for-the-corruption-that-it-is. [/quote]
Actually, if he does support SSB, then I would hve theological objections to it, since [i]I oppose SSBs[/i] (oops… Guess the all-seeing psychic powers of ‘Guess the Theological Position’ have failed at least once…). But, once again, [i]not a single person has offered evidence to support the charge that Bp. Whitmore personally supports SSB[/i].
And yes, I do have theological objections. I have theological objections to people accusing Bp. Whitmore of being ‘mentally challenged’ or ‘serpentinely devious.’ Somehow, that doesn’t exactly draw comparisons to Christ on the cross for me. And if that’s what ‘Classical Anglicanism’ or ‘Anglo-Catholicism’ looks like, then… Wow. I’m out for good.
“So it’s OK for me to call the Pope a Nazi now? Esp. since it was an organization he joined and was a part of?”
Speech is free, so call him what you like. Of course, he was forced to join as a 15 year-old schoolboy, signed up for it by one of his teachers — but still, that hasn’t stopped a regular commenter here describing him as “unfit to be pope” (although coming as it does from a self-admitted universalist, I simply laugh it off) on that basis.
“Judging someone by their association (no matter how long it’s gone on) is wrong. Full stop.”
Stuff and nonsense. AC’ism originated only in the late 1980s; +Whitmore was born in November 1945 and ordained in 1977. He must have been well into his late 40s (or older) when he joined. What does it say about a man who joins an organization not knowing its purpose, what it advocates, etc., or else careless of them? Can you imagine someone claiming that he joined the Nazis, the CP or the KKK as an adult, not knowing or not caring what they stand for, and getting away with it — well, maybe the CP, but not the others? Certainly, what “Affirming [Anglican] Catholicism” is a spernicious, poisonous and dangerous in any body ecclesiastical that entertains and honors it as the organizations above have been in any body politic that any one of them manages to infect and dominate; and can anyone reasonably deny that what the A[A]Cs advocate has infected TE”C”, has been entertained and honored by TE”C” and has come to dominate TE”C”?
If the pope is, arguably, if insanely, deemed “unfit to be pope” on the basis of his membership of Hitler Youth, what does such behaviour say about +Whitmore? Either “mentally challenged” or “serpentinely devious,” as I have written above and now reassert.
“Certainly, what ‘Affirming [Anglican] Catholicism’ is a spernicious, poisonous and dangerous in any body ecclesiastical that entertains and honors it as the organizations above have been in any body politic that any one of them manages to infect and dominate; and can anyone reasonably deny that what the A[A]Cs advocate has infected TE’C’, has been entertained and honored by TE’C’ and has come to dominate TE’C’?”
Sorry; the above should read:
Certainly, what “Affirming [Anglican] Catholicism†affirms is as pernicious, poisonous and dangerous (i.e., “heretical”) in any body ecclesiastical that entertains and honors it as the tenets of the organizations above have been in any body politic that any one of them manages to infect and dominate; and can anyone reasonably deny that what the A[A]Cs advocate has infected TE”C”, has been entertained and honored by TE”C” and has come to dominate TE”C”?
RE: “So it’s OK for me to call the Pope a Nazi now? Esp. since it was an organization he joined and was a part of?”
I completely agree that one can look at the past memberships of the Pope in various organizations and decide how he believes. Of course . . . unlike Bishop Whitmore in regards to Affirming Catholicism, the Pope was never the President and Chair of the Nazi party.
RE: “Judging someone by their association (no matter how long it’s gone on) is wrong. Full stop.”
Um, Isaac? He’s the chair and president of the organization. Right now. And yes, it’s fully appropriate and not wrong in the least to recognize that when one chairs and heads up an organization one of whose central tenets is “full inclusion of members of the Church in the threefold ministry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation” then the president of such an organization believes such a tenet and also affirms that goal.
It is, again, a central goal of Affirming Catholicism. [i]Central goal[/i], Isaac.
Couple that with his many and varied comments about redefining orthodoxy and other matters, along with his vote to support D039 and you’ve got some mighty fine evidence for his views.
RE: “since I oppose SSBs (oops… Guess the all-seeing psychic powers of ‘Guess the Theological Position’ have failed at least once…). . . . ”
Whoops — didn’t say you supported them. But it’s odd . . . I don’t see your saying that you don’t support one of the central tenets of Affirming Catholicism which was precisely what I quoted, namely: “Genuine catholicism means full inclusion of members of the Church in the threefold ministry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”
Since you started the whole “repudiation” thing, we breathlessly await your repudiation of that statement.
RE: “And if that’s what ‘Classical Anglicanism’ or ‘Anglo-Catholicism’ looks like, then… Wow. I’m out for good.”
[b]Oh no! Say it ain’t so!![/b] You mean . . . Anglo-Catholicism has lost an ardent supporter? I’m sure they’re [i]Completely Shattered[/i] at the potential loss.
On another point of interest — note the progression of Isaac’s remarks.
From “He might be associated with AffCath… So therefore, he supports ALL of its positions?”
To . . . er, well, okay, so [i]he’s President and Chair of Affirming Catholics in the US [/i], but who cares, you Ecclesiastical McCarthyites!!!
Priceless “rhetorical flexibility.” Way to roll with the consequences of factual ignorance there.
Dr. Tighe asks in #1:[blockquote]Does this mean that all the “remain Episcopal” clergy in Quincy Diocese are “Affirming Catholics”[/blockquote]
No. At least not all were as of the Synod last October when I was talking with some long-term Quincy friends.
This is truly heartbreaking to watch.