As the ordinations of bishops-elect Diane Bruce and Mary Glasspool approach on May 15, I hope we can all celebrate with them, their families, the Diocese of LA and TEC. At this time, it seems to me, we are living into our Baptismal Covenant and the resolutions ratified at the last General Convention; that we are following the Holy Spirit in calling the best people for particular ministries. We are modeling an Easter life for the greater Communion, and this is indeed who we are!
Ick. It is NOT who all of us are.
We have to remember that D025 doesn’t specifically address sexual acts between men, or between women. It dances around that, but avoids direct reference.
D025 ends by stating, “…sacramental theology since the time of Augustine of Hippo has affirmed that the validity of sacraments does not depend on the character of the ordained person celebrating those sacraments.”
Ick.
There is a need to respond to what is happening within The Episcopal Church, and to this latest heretical utterance, with Scriptural citations that provide guidance provided by “…the Faith once given….”
There are many such citations within Scripture, both those of the Old and New Testaments, but citations of the words of the Apostles, those men who personally knew Jesus Christ and who were personally charged by Him to carry out His mission and spread His Gospel are the most powerful for Christians who accept the Gospel as given by Jesus Christ and as taught by His Apostles.
So, I offer the following words from Peter, called the Rock by Jesus, from 1st Peter, Chapter 4:
Hey Ralph. I am totally on board with you in opposing the consecration of Glaspool.
But you also quote this with apparent disapproval as well:
“…sacramental theology since the time of Augustine of Hippo has affirmed that the validity of sacraments does not depend on the character of the ordained person celebrating those sacraments.â€
That’s actually a true and important part of orthodox Christianity. It was indeed affirmed at the time of Augustine and was considered crucial enough that Cranmer devoted one of the 39 Articles to it (Article XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.)
#3. Yep. Call me a revisionist, but the traditores were repentant sinners. An actively practicing homosexual is in a state of defllement, and unrepentant sin. Should one stand at the altar of God under those conditions?
For D025 to bring that little bit of orthodoxy in at the end…well, I find it offensive, but this thread of course isn’t about D025. I can find no way to defend what happened in LA, in NH, or what’s going on elsewhere.
Quoting the whole article (with some added bold-facing):
Nowhere does it say, “be affirmed.”
Respectfully,
Ole Rafe
What does the “validity of sacraments” mean?
To me it sounds like some old concept that if you have valid sacraments three times a year your salvation is assured. If the point of following Jesus as Lord is that we are submitted to him and ‘reassured’ that we are in good standing with him as long as we confess our sins then the sacraments are an “outward and visible sign” of our relationship with God. But the sacraments own their own, outside of the context of relationship marked by ongoing repentance are meaningless.
The old position that the sinfulness of the *individual* priest should not apply in this case because it is a substantial group that has declared their sacraments to have a different meaning altogether. When I go into a church and hear that everyone is welcome to participate in communion even if they do not accept the sovereignty of Christ then a lack of validity understates the problem. What does a communion even mean when sin has been banished?
That is who you are alright but it is heartbreaking that you have despoiled the Church in which I placed my life into Christ’s loving arms.
Intercessor
Edited for anger and disappointment not expressed in such a way as to build up the body–ed.
Re #3
Jon
[blockquote] “…sacramental theology since the time of Augustine of Hippo has affirmed that the validity of sacraments does not depend on the character of the ordained person celebrating those sacraments.â€
That’s actually a true and important part of orthodox Christianity. It was indeed affirmed at the time of Augustine and was considered crucial enough that Cranmer devoted one of the 39 Articles to it (Article XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.) [/blockquote]
This is true… up to a point. However where Blessed Augustine (and the West largely embraced his error) went was in establishing a dualistic nature to the Church, thus effectively negating the ancient teaching of the Fathers that there are no Mysteries (sacraments) outside the Church. In theory Rome never renounced that teaching and still holds it today. But in practical terms she has rendered that important doctrine meaningless.
A correct understanding of the issue differentiates between personal sin, and heresy. The former can separate one from the saving grace of God pending repentance. The latter places one outside the bounds of the Church. Heresy is not a personal sin or failing. Thus we see the canons of the early Church Councils mandating that those who denied the Orthodox Catholic Faith, especially with regard to the nature of the Godhead and who later embraced Orthodoxy had to be received by full baptism as their sacraments were without grace. The belief that personal sin deprives one of the grace of the sacraments however is a false doctrine (itself a condemned heresy) called Donatism.
Setting aside for the moment the impossibility of W/O… The relevance of this to the issue above is that Mary Glasspool’s orders would be invalid, not because of her homosexuality (we all struggle with sin), but because she has openly embraced heresy and is thus outside of the Church. Heretics have no sacraments.
ICXC NIKA
John
Good point John #8.
And at this point we may recall the glad sounds of TEC leaders (Bishops Peter Lee in Virginia and Neil Alexander in Atlanta for instance) who merrily quote: “Given the choice between heresy and schism, choose heresy everytime.” Guess TEC has been good to their word on that. At the time Lee said this at a diocesan event I wrote him and said it was an odd choice … to be schismatic does not automatically excommunicate you, but being a heretic does. If the intention is not to break communion, heresy is an odd way to go about it.
Of course, heresy is an odd way to go about anything. Except for this: heresies come to us naturally in our fallen state. It is “who we are” in many ways. In his book “The Cruelty of Heresy” Bishop Allison writes, “We are susceptible to heretical teachings because, in one form or another, they nurture and reflect the way we would have it be rather than the way God has provided, which is infinitely better for us. As they lead us into the blind alleys of self-indulgence and escape from life, heresies pander to the most unworthy tendencies of the human heart.” I like that description … akin to saying that heresy is what we would have commanded if we were God. Only, it is when we try to take God’s place we are in the wrong place to be.
Like TEC. The good bishop ends with this comment: “It is astonishing how little attention has been given to these two aspects of heresy, its cruelty and its pandering to sin.” I suppose he meant how much attention to correcting it, since we seem to see a lot of attention given to heresy in terms of choosing heresy over other options, affirming heresy, engaging in it, teaching it and blessing it.
But what else could we do? It’s just who we are.
Well one thing is absolutely certain. Notwithstanding Lambeth 1.10 the AC will do absolutely nothing except continue the throw the North American orthodox under the bus for the sake of foux unity.
First Ecumenical Council
“CANON IV.
CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt
This was the famous Council that set about borders yet did not hesitate to declare reality. If the AC wants to be conciliar, there is ample ancient precedent for the recognition of the falsity of alleged bishops. One or more is not a difficulty insurmountable to those who really wish to discipline. The reality is that the ABC and governing instruments of unity have been subverted to the “cause”.
Thanks John (#8).
Let me take a brief minute to reaffirm what I said in my original post — that I am incontrovertibly opposed to the elevation/consecration of Glaspool. (To which I might add many others, e.g. Buddhist Kevin Thew Forrester, etc. etc.) The reason is that a bishop’s primary job is to safeguard the teaching of the church, which these bishops or bishop-candidates have abandoned. I agree that their elevation was a terrible decision and those who have become apostate since elevation (Spong, John Robinson in 1963, etc.) should resign or be tried for heresy and removed. Indeed, the number of people currently wearing the mitre in TEC who have abandoned the creedal faith is staggering — a number still quite large even if one disregards how they voted for VGR in 2003, and simply looked at their clear support for people who deny the creeds.
All my post did was to gently observe that Ralph shouldn’t necessarily conclude that those who have been baptized by these erring clerics (as an example) aren’t really baptized. Ralph had expressed a huge distaste for the idea that such sacramental acts could be valid. Ralph was very honest and explained that he was in fact a Donatist so that answered my question.
In your response, however, you write:
The issue I was discussing is what should happen to those baptized BY the heretics, not what should happen to the heretics themselves. That was the key dispute of the Donatist controversy, which you incorrectly describe as being whether sin deprives the sinner himself of the effects of the sacraments. That’s a useful question to ask, but is not what the Donatist controversy is about.
Here is a practical question which might help frame what I was chatting with Ralph about more clearly. Suppose priest A baptizes layman B. If indeed the correct orthodox (small O) position should be that B’s baptism is invalid if the PRIEST did not hold the entire creedal faith at the time of baptism, then how is ACNA dealing with its membership, drawn chiefly from TEC? Does ACNA investigate the circumstances of each person’s baptism to ensure his baptism was “real”? Does anyone here know?
I mentioned the 39 Articles partly because they were written at a time that had to deal with a similar problem to what we are dealing with today. Namely there were a number of Christian communions, each of which was convinced that the other was fundamentally mistaken on essential issues of the Christian faith. Certainly the English Reformers believed that Rome was indeed in tremendous error (and also believed that many of their bishops were “wicked”). And yet, they state emphatically that baptisms received from such persons are still valid.
Quick apology… I addressed my reply to #8 when I meant it to be for #7 (Ad Orientem). Sorry!
RE: “This is who we are!”
Yeh. That’s what we’re afraid of.
Regarding: “Ralph was very honest and explained that he was in fact a Donatist so that answered my question.” Jon, the fact is that Ralph is a very strange person who has a bizarre sense of humor. Furthermore, he is quite an ignoramus when it comes to theology in general, not to mention sacramental theology.
While I’m not sure whether the subsequent broadening of the Augustinian resolution of the Donatist controversy is entirely satisfactory, my objection is that the Donatist controversy is being used to support the ordination of self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners. I doubt that Augustine, or those who followed him, would have anticipated that use – but I don’t know.
Who ordains? Is it the Bishop? The “church”? Or, is it God? If a Bishop goes through the motions of an ordination ceremony (we won’t get into the mess of which ordinal must be used), and has intent to ordain, does that mean that the person is ordained? Are Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool actually in Holy Orders? Did God ordain them? What about others who are self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners? What about others who DARE approach the altar in a state of utter defilement?
Would I ask Mr. Robinson or Ms. Glasspool to baptize my child? (I won’t answer that question.) I do agree that such a baptism would be valid, since laity can perform baptism.
What if I were headed toward Holy Orders and found that Mr. Robinson or Ms. Glasspool would be my ordaining bishop? Would I be concerned? (I won’t answer that question.) If it’s God who ordains, then there would be no worry about who the ordaining bishop is. Would there?
(We must remember that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t recognize that even the most Godly of Anglican bishops, priests, and deacons – validly ordained in my worthless opinion – are in Holy Orders.)
A few years ago, I found myself attending a Holy Eucharist at which the PB was the Celebrant. There was a dilemma. Should I remain in the pew at the communion? And, if I go forward, should I receive from her – or should I cross my arms over my chest and let her touch me with a blessing?
What about a service at which Mr. Robinson or Ms. Glasspool is the Celebrant? (I won’t answer that question.)
Ole Rafe, the Anglican Donatist, is quite an ignoramus. But, I can find no valid defense of the LA “consecration,” and I don’t see it as a reason for celebration of any sort.
Ad Orientum (#7.) said,
“A correct understanding of the issue differentiates between personal sin, and heresy. The former can separate one from the saving grace of God pending repentance. The latter places one outside the bounds of the Church. Heresy is not a personal sin or failing. Thus we see the canons of the early Church Councils mandating that those who denied the Orthodox Catholic Faith, especially with regard to the nature of the Godhead and who later embraced Orthodoxy had to be received by full baptism as their sacraments were without grace.”
Key in the above citation is,
“The latter places one outside the bounds of the Church.”
The revisionists leading The Episcopal Church have clearly done this as witnessed the TEC’s falling out ofcommunion with the majority of Anglicans who regularly practice the sacramental aspects of their Faith, i.e. attend church on a regular basis.
The current problems regarding attendance at the upcoming meeting in Dublin are ample proof of a sense of heresy in TEC and a lack of trust in the authenticity of TEC’s leadership.
The lack of participation by those who will boycott the Dublin meeting is not so much based upon the personal sin of those boycotted as it is on the heresy involved in TEC’s leadership and General Convention and House of Bishops’ approval of and their blessing of such sin.
Since heresy seems to be involved, then it follows that TEC’s leadership have likely placed themselves “…outside the bounds of the Church.” and thus it reasonable, without being a Donatist, to question the authenticity of ordinations/consecrations performed by clergy who are committing heresy.
By the way, Webster’s definition of “boycott” is
“Boycott Boy”cott`, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Boycotted; p. pr. &
vb. n. Boycotting.] [From Captain Boycott, a land agent in
Mayo, Ireland, so treated in 1880.]
To combine against (a landlord, tradesman, employer, or other
person), to withhold social or business relations from him,
and to deter others from holding such relations; to subject
to a boycott.”
Ralph (#14) said,
“A few years ago, I found myself attending a Holy Eucharist at which the PB was the Celebrant. There was a dilemma. Should I remain in the pew at the communion? And, if I go forward, should I receive from her – or should I cross my arms over my chest and let her touch me with a blessing?”
I would just remain in sitting at my pew or get up and leave before the PB began presiding over the the Eucharist.
My only intent in attending any event presided over by the PB would be to listen to and evaluate her words, observe and evaluate her behavior and projection of herself, and to evaluate the reactions of the others present.
Hey Ralph, it’s hard for me to know how to respond, since you are calling yourself an ignoramus and a Donatist and so on. It’s puzzling so I’ll leave it alone.
It sounds like one thing you did say in your most recent post is that even if one accepts the post-Augustinian position on the issues related to the Donatist controversy (restated in the 39A), it doesn’t then follow that the elevation of Mary G or VGR (etc.) is an ok thing.
Certainly we are agreed about that.
Re # 11
Jon
No apology needed. I was # 8 but am now # 7.
[blockquote] Here is a practical question which might help frame what I was chatting with Ralph about more clearly. Suppose priest A baptizes layman B. If indeed the correct orthodox (small O) position should be that B’s baptism is invalid if the PRIEST did not hold the entire creedal faith at the time of baptism, then how is ACNA dealing with its membership, drawn chiefly from TEC? Does ACNA investigate the circumstances of each person’s baptism to ensure his baptism was “real� Does anyone here know?[/blockquote]
I can’t answer for the ACNA. However from an Orthodox (large ‘O’) perspective one must be careful to differentiate between heretical doubts or opinions and a more formal and pronounced heresy. Also institutional heresy is another issue. If a “church” is institutionally heretical it is understood to have lost the grace of the Mysteries. Whereas some private doubts on the part of individual priest are not usually seen as an absolute impediment to sacramental grace.
My guess is that the ACNA follows the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) approach and accepts most sacraments including baptisms as valid provided one employs the correct formula (Trinitarian) and the correct matter (water). While this would be consistent with the general understanding of the Christian West since Augustine it is without any support among the Fathers and was unknown in the Church (East or West) before him. The Augustinian approach effectively reduces the sacraments to magic. Right form + right matter = sacrament. This has been fairly firmly rejected in the Christian East since it was first espoused.
ICXC NIKA
John
[Edited by Elf]
I do not want this thread to go too far afield, but please keep in mind that Holy Communion for Christians involves not simply sacramental efficacy but also Eucharistic fellowship.
The term “Eucharistic fellowship” presents a problem because it is a term, when lacking in specificity, can be abused and misused.
If you accept as a definition that a “fellow” is ‘someone that you share something in common with,’ and “fellowship” as that state of ‘sharing something in common,’ then an attempt to define a specific fellowship without defining what is shared and what is not shared is fraught with opportunities, to repeat myself, for misunderstanding and even worse, deceptive and manipulative ‘wordsmithing.’
So, as I see it, the damage that has been done to the ‘state of trust’ between traditional/orthodox Anglicans by the premptory and dictatorially action-oriented leadership of TEC makes the issue of “Eucharistic fellowship” with TEC’s leadership problematic, at best.
Excuse me, but I would like to edit my last paragraph. Please change my last paragraph (Comment #19.) from
“So, as I see it, the damage that has been done to the ‘state of trust’ between traditional/orthodox Anglicans by the premptory and dictatorially action-oriented leadership of TEC makes the issue of “Eucharistic fellowship†with TEC’s leadership problematic, at best.”
to read
“So, as I see it, the damage that has been done to the ‘state of trust’ between traditional/orthodox Anglicans and revisionists by the pre-emptory and dictatorially action-oriented leadership of TEC makes the issue of “Eucharistic fellowship†with TEC’s leadership problematic, at best.”