Hi Fr. Bill, if you were addressing me, I guess I failed to make myself clear. I said I had no qualms with article 26, and even quoted and affirmed them, saying that "the sacraments are not rendered ineffectual by the unworthiness of the minister" and again, it is not a question of being "unworthy" or "evil"--which in my mind is the opposite of dismissing Article 26. I think you'd agree that is not merely personal opinion, but the standard way to take this article. 

In other words, I completely agree if Robinson was validly ordained/consecrated, the sacraments are not ineffectual in light of his unrighteousness--like we agree that if women are validly ordained, the sacraments are not innefectual. But just because you agree with me that WO is NOT valid (the "form" of women's ordination is OK, while the "matter" is deficient)--does not mean I can accuse you of emotionally dismissing Article 26.

I confess, though, my emotions may indeed cloud how I'm veiwing the larger issue. I'm asking a few questions: is institutionalized heresy ever possible? Could Rome or Orthodoxy be correct concerning the charism specifically of ECUSA? Just because Rome has applied "intent" against Anglicans, does that mean it is impossible (without being hypocritical) for orthodox Anglicans to apply it against ECUSA? Can we admit that Rome is right in part without indicting ourselves? Again, I'm asking that (even though the form and matter of Robinson's consecration were OK, might there be a problem with the "intent"). Seeing God blasphemed, perhaps I'm emotionally looking for an historically "high bar" on the meaning of intent, and wondering if the "low bar" understanding is deficient--I admit that. My apologies, though, if my logic has been fuzzy to y'all in this regard, I've been trying to be reasoned and clear.

GCM+


--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...