On the whole the discussion of the RC invitation and reaction to it has been both lively and polite, exactly what we want. However ...
This blog is intended for open and sometimes spirited discussion of the issues before it. We are not only willing, but desirous of publishing opinions we do not agree with here, where they can be considered in a rational fashion. We reject very few of the comments submitted to us. I was disappointed on coming to my machine to find two comments from separate individuals that I could not make myself publish.
One was a strictly ad hominem attack on a writer, appearing to me (though I hope I'm wrong) to be an attempt to avoid considering his thoughts by sidetracking the discussion into his own merits. The arguments presented on this blog were presented for the sake of their content, and their content is the discussion at hand. The writer could have been asked quietly and nonjudgmentally to explain what led to a change of opinion and that might have been very productive, but the comment received did not do that.
The other just buffaloed me. It purported to oppose the concept of seven sacraments, but listed a number of practices never refered to as such, while failing to mention any of the 'lesser five'. I'm not at all sure what the writer was getting at and determined that it would add no more than confusion to the discussion.
Both writers are more than welcome to rephrase their comments. Theirs are viewpoints that are not mine, and therefore, for exactly that reason, I do want to hear them.
ed
16 comments:
Charles,
I'm afraid I wasn't able to post your second comment, though it was much clearer than the first, and I would like to post your view, even though none of us on this blog will be in agreement. The first post did not manage to raise the points you are trying to make, and the second was really a comment on the one I don't have any more. If you would submit a reasoned explanation of your position, we would publish it, though we would certasinly enter a rebuttal.
ed
Incredulous Anglican raised some questions as to what he perceives as changes of opinion on the part of Fr. Nalls. I rejected that post, not to cover up anything, but because it was couched as an attack on a person (an ad hominem argument), rather than dealing with the arguments being raised. If the arguments hold, they hold, and if they do not, they do not. A passing mention of there having been a change of mind would be appropriate, as would a question wonderwing what led Fr. Nalls to such a change. Attempting to discredit the substance because of the identity of its author is never valid argument
He has posted two subsequent comments, both of which depend on the one I no longer have to be intelligible - but both of them continued the vein of personal attack, and I wouldn't have published them anyway.
ed
I hate this. I want to be as fair as possible. I dislike rejecting comments. I could get away with doing so and ignoring future posts as well, but I prefer transparency. I've been left alone for comment moderation for a few days, and I take such a role seriously. Posts that will interfere with the process of orderly discussion of various points of view aren't acceptable. I've seen other blogs and boards hopelessly derailed by such.
However, the practice of some other blogs of rejecting anything they don't agree with is just as bad. We do not do that. Many of the posts represent views the three of us are united in opposing. Opposing views presented with consideration for others are more than welcome, and, incidentally, comments with which we agree in substance which do not show such consideration have been and will be rejected.
ed
Again, how is it an ad hominem attack to question Fr. Nalls own words -- which themselves were an attack?
"There are those who make this work of proselytizing a business—many of whom are former evangelical Protestants who have swapped team jerseys--and study the art of injecting doubt into susceptible minds as to whether we are Catholic."
Fr. Nalls asserts that Rome will require re-confirmation of "converts" and a repudiation of Anglican clerics' orders and previous sacramental grace. Such demands are not to be found in the Note from the CDF and these notions have been contradicted in an address by the TAC's Primate at the FiF UK assembly (with +Hepworth relating personal assurances from the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF). Canon Nalls now presumes to instruct us otherwise?
Why is unreasonable to point out that he may very well be the one who has lately played for the other team and has an ecclesiastical axe to grind?
Mine is not an ad hominem attack. I have no other argument to make than to plead for transparency and full disclosure. This poster questions the motives of his opponents. He misconstrues the (few) plain facts of the forthcoming apostolic constitution. Why can his bias not be pointed out?
Please post my other comments.
...with +Hepworth relating personal assurances from the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF...
Sadly, this demonstrates the real problem. ++Hepworth's promise and Cardinal Levada's detailed announcement (which anniouncment is totally consistent with the military and Pastoral Provisions) cannot be reconciled. One of them is wrong; and it cannot be Cardinal Levada. He was speaking for Rome directly.
Incredulous:
I am incredulous that you can be so blind as not to know that Fr. Nalls is absolutely right when he says that everything including Confirmation, Ordination, Absolutions and the Holy Communion, are considered by Rome, and will continue to be considered, under this constitution, to have been absolutely null and utterly void. The fact, that should be very, very obvious, is that all of this has to follow their erroneous rejectiion of previous Holy Orders as valid. As they say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
As for Fr. Nalls' motives, it is simple: He has seen where he had been mistaken, and he feels obligated to speak out.
Your other comments are lost and gone forever; but I certainly trust Ed's judgment. Argue points rather than shooting at the man. Fr. Nalls is a priest who has demonstrated his honesty and sense of reponsibility.
...with +Hepworth relating personal assurances from the Cardinal Prefect of the CDF...
Sadly, this demonstrates the real problem. Archbishop Hepworth's promise and Cardinal Levada's detailed announcement (which announcment is totally consistent with the military and Pastoral Provisions) cannot be reconciled. One of them is wrong; and it cannot be Cardinal Levada. He was speaking for Rome directly.
May I just note that Canon Nalls will very probably be away from home and "off the air" for the next several days, on account of church business which he had no part in scheduling any more than Fr. Hart, Fr. Kirby, or I did.
Thus I think it would only be fair to refrain from trying to involve him in this discussion, either directly or indirectly, until he has had a chance to plug back into the cyber world, probably after this coming weekend.
He is more than capable of dealing with any attempts to besmirch or misinterpret him, but he certainly needs the opportunity to do so.
John A. Hollister+
Dear Ed,
Why not post the two together? Oh well doesn't matter, it's probably outside the St. Louis Affirmation, and this is why you would disagree. However, it's very fundamental to the Reformation and "justification by faith" as well as 'church traditions' (adiaphora) as expressed in the 39 Articles. Why some traditions are alterable and some are not is an important question. It not only has to do with Christ's ordinance but the nature by which sin is forgiven. If the two sacraments forgive sin, then in what way do the lesser ones?
Presently, this sounds off topic. The reason I even bothered mentioning it, was to point out how we have enabled Rome to step into a vacuum of teaching authority within the Continuum-- either by a negligence or willful attempt to catechize according to Roman doctrine. I believe 'seven sacraments' is curious given the Roman view of merit? Do we teach merit?
I am sorry I had to post this three times, but I hope my question is finally making more sense. I don't think it's immediately dismissable because it involves the Articles inside our Prayer Book which explains why we are not RC nor Radical.
Charles,
well, in the first place, A comment is either published or rejected. In the latter case it disappears. Posting both is no longer an option as neither no exist.
I'm still not entirely sure what you are getting at. Fr, Hart has quite well discussed in what sense only two sacraments are "generally necessary for salvation" and in what sense there are five others properly and "commonly so-called".
While some Anglicans have interpreted the Articles as to forbid so labeling those five, it seemed clear to the authors of the St. Louis Affirmation and seems clear to most continuing Anglicans that the more inclusive interpretation is more in accord with the actual Articles.
I'm completely baffled as to what relevance your bringing up of "merit" has here. I cannot find any way it relates to the number of sacraments.
Please pardon me if I can only see what you've written as a thrashing around in an attempt to find things on which to attack Rome. I'm not an RC, and not terribly much in sympathy with the program my archbishop is advancing, but I do not need this kind of argumentation to make my case clear.
ed
Ed, et al,
Thanks for this site. I am a RC. I post here periodically and have always been respected by those here. Actually, I really like learning from this site.
I realize this particular post is about, "housekeeping," but I would like to try and move our understanding forward (through God's grace) regarding the Orthodox Anglican understanding of the Petrine Ministry. IOW, what would a more proper, balanced understanding of the Papacy be according to Anglicans? Also, what are the theological underpinnings of authority for the Bishop of Rome according to Anglicans? If the Bishop of Rome presides in Love and has a position of honor; where does this even come from Scripturally and by Tradition? To me, speaking as someone who is a RC, I would not believe anything about the Papacy if I did not also see the theological purpose rooted in Scripture and Tradition. I actually am not totally against coming to a better understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome. I can easily see how the current understanding of the Papacy looks,sounds and some would say is an overblown claim to authority. Fr. Hart has helped me see that this is how it is viewed. Part of me actually agrees. However, without betraying my adherence to the Roman Catholic faith I am comforted to know that this current Pope and several previous Popes have actually spoken and dealt with this issue. They have spoken of a Papacy that is actually very limited in practice etc... I, of course, am not one who can speak at any length about how this would look. I do believe that dialogue is important. We are after all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Other areas that I have thought some about have to do with the validity of Anglican Orders. Fr. Hart explained to me a little over a year ago that the RC position can actually be seen as true. The difference is that it does not actually apply to certain Ordained men in the Anglican Church. This makes sense to me. For some reason the expression valid but irregular comes to mind fro the RC perspective. I do believe that in time this could actually be worked out to everyones satisfaction. Please know that I do not fully know what I'm talking about, however, I'm also not completely uninformed and, yes, I have been known to remove the chip that the Roman Catholic Church placed in my brain that disables my thinking-LOL
Anyway, I love you guys
you're great teachers
Pat(rick)
Why thank you, Patrick. We are glad to have you here. I'm not going to try to deal with all of your questions right now. Just hang on and all these things will come up, as they have before, over and over again, as they are at the heart of the issues. I'm not going there in any detail right now, but I don't think you've quite understood Fr. Hart on the issue of Orders. I think he and I are entirely agreed that Anglican orders were always definitely valid (at least up until the "ordination" of women began), but there is also the infusion of Old Catholic orders by co-consecrators to make the matter more complicated and interesting. Maybe we won't convince you to become an Anglican (I for one won't even try), but we hope to give you a balanced idea of who and what we actually are. Stick with us. In the long run the object is that they all may be one, not merely in a spiritual sense (which is already true), but visibly. That takes getting to know and love one another.
In Him
ed
Ed,
Thanks!
"In the long run the object is that they all may be one, not merely in a spiritual sense (which is already true), but visibly. That takes getting to know and love one another."
This is where my heart is. I feel no need to become Anglican ( I'm Irish Catholic for goodness sake-lol). I just believe that these issues can be worked out and we will worship together some day-again,that is. It may not be in any of our lifetimes, but I believe the Holy Spirit will bring it about.
Patrick
Sadly, this demonstrates the real problem. ++Hepworth's promise and Cardinal Levada's detailed announcement (which anniouncment is totally consistent with the military and Pastoral Provisions) cannot be reconciled. One of them is wrong; and it cannot be Cardinal Levada. He was speaking for Rome directly.
Rev Hart
Sadly, you have got it wrong, the truth will soon be revealed.
Ed: I respect your right to reject messages, and some should indeed be rejected. But why do you feel this is of interest to the majority of us?
I am reminded of the saying that although sausage is nice to eat, oner does not care to watch it being made.
LKW
Rev Hart
Sadly, you have got it wrong, the truth will soon be revealed.
On this matter, the truth is already quite obvious.
Fr. Wells, actually I agree with your last comment about sausage making, and I actiuvely hate having to make posts such as that one. However, while I strongly defend our right to refuse publication of comments, I am convinced that the one refused deserves an explanation. In most circumstances it would be rude not to give one.
On the discussion board where I serve as moderator, there is provision for the sending of a private message to a 'member'. There I'm able to handle such matters quietly and out of public view. I prefer that. However, Blogspot does not include such a feature, and most posters have not provided contact information. That's why I settled for a clumsy, but still workable way of proceeding. Unfortunately everyone else gets to look at the sausage meat. Sorry about that.
ed
Post a Comment