I wouldn’t knock it. Either Dan Martins gets to the House of Bishops or a majority of standing committees demonstrate that dioceses really don’t get to choose their bishop if he dissents in any way from the current orthodoxy.
It’s testimony to the character of the Bishop-Elect that those least inclined to him are willing to write a letter in such terms.
Springfield, it might be noted, elected George Seymour in 1878 after General Convention blocked his election in Illinois three years before, on the score of supposed ritualist excesses.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
The stats for 2002 through 2008 were truly awful and yet I have the impression that +Beckwith was highly regarded. What is it about Fr. Martins that is so much more promising? Statmann
Fr. Martins is, as I have been informed, a member of the SSC clerical fraternity — a group that supports (at least on paper) rapprochement between Anglican churches, Rome and Orthodoxy. His consecration by the Archflaminica will support this — how?
#3 Fr. Eaton is certainly correct in #4, but I believe it’s also code to the uber-left that he’s not a +Lawrence and will not push a DioSC-type agenda.
Anybody that’s followed Fr. Martins many public comments, on his blog, and on T19 and Stand Firm know that he is absolutely NOT a “leaver”, and he never will be. He has taken more than his share of heat from reasserters from time to time because of this position.
He’s christologically orthodox, but very moderate in his church political views. To refuse consent to Fr. Martins will reveal that church’s desire to be “inclusive” and welcoming of all points of view is a sham.
Anastasios,
You’re right. It is not simply stating the obvious, it is stating the obvious for a particular reason, whether as you suggest for the progressives of the HOB and Standing Committees, or even for conservatives just to remind them of whose church it is. Or both.
In any case, it is a well-received letter of support from a group that didn’t have to make a statement. It shows a least some voices in that group who accept the episcopacy Dan Martins would bring that they recognize as bridge-building for “the long haul” of being an Episcopal diocese in TECUSA. Bless them.
“…the disenfranchised moderate majority …” Yeah. Right.
I wouldn’t knock it. Either Dan Martins gets to the House of Bishops or a majority of standing committees demonstrate that dioceses really don’t get to choose their bishop if he dissents in any way from the current orthodoxy.
It’s testimony to the character of the Bishop-Elect that those least inclined to him are willing to write a letter in such terms.
Springfield, it might be noted, elected George Seymour in 1878 after General Convention blocked his election in Illinois three years before, on the score of supposed ritualist excesses.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Is it presumptuous of this group to state that ++Katherine will preside?
Anastasios,
They are only stating what has already been scheduled.
The stats for 2002 through 2008 were truly awful and yet I have the impression that +Beckwith was highly regarded. What is it about Fr. Martins that is so much more promising? Statmann
Fr. Martins is, as I have been informed, a member of the SSC clerical fraternity — a group that supports (at least on paper) rapprochement between Anglican churches, Rome and Orthodoxy. His consecration by the Archflaminica will support this — how?
#3 Fr. Eaton is certainly correct in #4, but I believe it’s also code to the uber-left that he’s not a +Lawrence and will not push a DioSC-type agenda.
Peace,
-ms
Anybody that’s followed Fr. Martins many public comments, on his blog, and on T19 and Stand Firm know that he is absolutely NOT a “leaver”, and he never will be. He has taken more than his share of heat from reasserters from time to time because of this position.
He’s christologically orthodox, but very moderate in his church political views. To refuse consent to Fr. Martins will reveal that church’s desire to be “inclusive” and welcoming of all points of view is a sham.
Anastasios,
You’re right. It is not simply stating the obvious, it is stating the obvious for a particular reason, whether as you suggest for the progressives of the HOB and Standing Committees, or even for conservatives just to remind them of whose church it is. Or both.
In any case, it is a well-received letter of support from a group that didn’t have to make a statement. It shows a least some voices in that group who accept the episcopacy Dan Martins would bring that they recognize as bridge-building for “the long haul” of being an Episcopal diocese in TECUSA. Bless them.