One of the essays [The Rev. W. Andrew] Waldo wrote in response to Bishop Search Committee questions dealt with the blessing of same-gender relationships.
Waldo wrote that his congregation in Minnesota encompasses a broad diversity of opinion on the topic. Some members are same-gender couples and others are firmly against the blessings, he wrote.
Waldo wrote that “we can not act unilaterally, and I would not therefore sanction such blessings in the Diocese until we have, through the General Convention, reached a decision.”
In the interview, he said, “I have always believed that it is more important that we stand together around the altar, taking in the body and blood of Christ as brothers and sisters, than it is to win the argument.”
Please keep in mind that the written responses quoted above were done BEFORE General Convention. Someone will need to ask Waldo if he believes the last General Convention has already authorized SSB’s.
Sounded good enough, apparently. Praxis will tell the truth as it did with Griswald and the current PB and Archbishop Rowan Williams. Watch the feet! Watch the feet!
“I have always believed that it is more important that we stand together around the altar, taking in the body and blood of Christ as brothers and sisters, than it is to win the argument.â€
What if that argument is over what God wants versus what man wants? Souls are at stake after all.
Andrew Waldo+ claims on the one hand that the diocese shouldn’t act unilaterally vis-a-vis the national church, and yet on the other hand, he also takes for granted that TEC has the freedom to act unilaterally despite strong opposition from the wider AC as a whole. That fundamental inconsistency in logic is basic to this whole prolonged crisis within Anglicanism. We Americans love unrestricted autonomy, and hate accountability.
It’s also symptomatic, of course, that Waldo simply takes it as axiomatic that the clear and consistent teaching of both Scripture and Tradition can be overruled, whenever a new consensus is achieved. You know, sort of the unspoken assumption that the will of God can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of enough dioceses or provinces, or something like that.
David Handy+
“I have always believed that it is more important that we stand together around the altar, taking in the body and blood of Christ as brothers and sisters, than it is to win the argument.”
And what if the “argument” is about God’s Will, His ordinances regarding our relationships with one another.
If the Sacrament of the Eucharist requires an ordained priest to invoke the Presence of the Holy Spirit, will the Holy Spirit hark to the ministrations of an ordained priest who in his preaching and actions supports those acting contrary to God’s Will?
Might not the Sacrament of the Eucharist performed by such a priest be an ’empty’ act and not a sacrament at all?
Let’s remove this from the LGBT issue and consider the issue of the two married priests, male and female, in Pennsylvania who were active participants in Wiccan events. Do you think that they were able to invoke the Holy Spirit as Episcopal priests? Dont’t you think that the participation and embracing of those two priests of Wiccan events that were clearly pagan compromised them in their Christian sacramental duties?
[blockquote]In the interview, he said, “I have always believed that it is more important that we stand together around the altar, taking in the body and blood of Christ as brothers and sisters, than it is to win the argument.â€[/blockquote]
Apparently that view is not shared by many reappraisers, given that they have [i]acted[/i] so as to break communion, establishing facts and rendering discussion (‘argument?’) irrelevant. Perhaps his comment would be more relevant if TEC had yet to act on its innovations.
That said, his deftness with irrelevant, straw man propositions (e.g., choose one between i) standing together around the altar [i]or[/i] ii) winning an ‘argument’) does reveal how well suited he is for TEC.
🙄
AnglicanFirst, I am no fan of Wiccans (or of Waldo), but the Church catholic has held since Augustine that the validity of the sacraments is not dependent upon the worthiness of the priest. If it was, we’d all be in trouble.
Followup to #7….
ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
No. 4, I looked closely at the link and could not find where Waldo “takes for granted that TEC has the freedom to act unilaterally despite strong opposition from the AC as a whole.” similarly, I didn’t find the axiom that Scripture and Tradition can be overruled by consensus. Is this something that the Rev. Mr. Waldo has embraced, or is this something that we are projecting on him?
Further to Alta Californian and Jon’s reply’s to #5, AnglicanFirst, the question of whether “the participation [of priests in] events that were clearly pagan compromised them in their Christian sacramental duties” was debated and condemned by the council of Arles (314), since when it has been rejected by the Church as a heterodox, or worse, doctrine. Those holding it are known as Donatists. St Augustine of Hippo was a strong opponent of the sect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist
RE: “the question of whether “the participation [of priests in] events that were clearly pagan compromised them in their Christian sacramental duties†was debated and condemned by the council of Arles (314), since when it has been rejected by the Church as a heterodox, or worse, doctrine.”
Um . . . no.
Completely garbled.
The question was if the *repentant* clergy who *had sinned previously* could not return and perform sacraments. The Donatists said “no” and were of course wrong.
Further, nobody here is denying the validity of the sacraments. And nobody who’s promoting grossly heretical beliefs is repenting anyway.
So the whole Donatist meme is an utter red herring.
RE: “No. 4, I looked closely at the link and could not find where Waldo “takes for granted that TEC has the freedom to act unilaterally despite strong opposition from the AC as a whole.â€
What? You’re kidding!! The Greenville News didn’t include his answers to his walkabout questions?
NOVA Scout that twice in 24 hours that you’ve pretended as if you don’t know about the supporting documentation for the heretical beliefs of two people — Schori and Waldo.
True, Sarah, nobody here is denying the validity of the sacraments. Merely questioning whether “the Sacrament of the Eucharist performed by such a priest be an ‘empty’ act and not a sacrament at all”. World of difference. As the speed of your spin indicates, the Donatism charge is no red herring.
Reply to #7 and 8.
I understand what Donatism is about and I know its history.
But, I still believe that our revisionist clergy in ECUSA have embraced a ‘secular belief system’ and are syncretists in that they are trying to add it to “…the Faith olnce given….” In fact, it seems that they are trying to replace “…the Faith once given…” with their secularism.
Now, if ECUSA has failed to discipline “evil ministers” over the past forty years, then the whole canonical structure of ECUSA has failed to protect “…the Faith once given…” and I feel free in this case to use my own judgement and refuse the ministery of revisionist clergy.
To wit, I am acting on my own because the episcopal government of ECUSA has failed to act to protect “…the faith once given….”
#14… thanks AnglicanFirst. Naturally I totally agree with you that you can and should “use my own judgement and refuse the ministery of revisionist clergy.” Absolutely. I have done that myself — stopped going to a revisionist parish because the Christless sermons were killing me.
So for sure we are agreed about that.
And also you are certainly right that lots of TEC priests are replacing the faith once given with something else in their teaching and preaching. Absolutely.
Alta Californian (#7) and I are 100% on board with you on all this.
What we were reluctant to get on board with you about is when you asked “Might not the Sacrament of the Eucharist performed by such a priest be an ‘empty’ act and not a sacrament at all?” That’s been specifically addressed in a number of ways over time, and in the Anglican church specifically by Article XXVI.
AnglicanFirst has got it exactly right. The issue of the priest’s intention or lack thereof has nothing to do with Donatism, but it does affect the validity of the sacrament.
Listen to St. Justin Martyr, “No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true” (Apology of St. Justin Martyr). Unity of belief is an essential part of what Communion is.