[faithandlife] Not A "Freudian Fixation" RSVP/RSVP PATHETIC: GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE - JERUSALEM 2008

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : June 2008 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "The Rev GDVWiebe SSC.,PhD" <gdvw@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Frater: XCertainly as one who supports civil same sex marriage at the
same time I do not suggest this is a sacramental union as the Church-at
least since c. 1000 AD or so in the West has understood this.  As
minoirities (The Continuum I mean) when we help another minority we help
ourselves. Blessings. GDVW+John+
> I believe that we have already lost so much to this culture that we are
> going to do well to retrieve what the Church used to believe and practice
> in her own life and even that will take an enormous amount of personal and
> corporate commitment. This is also why the so-called "modern liturgies"
> (that now some of our own priests and bishops have become enamored with)
> are so undermining. Take a look at any of the new liturgies and examine
> them next to any classical BCP and it is breathtaking! One could even
> wonder if Holy Matrimony has been effected by their use. At any rate, I
> don't think I can improve on what your excellent statement:
>
>
>
>
> "The other is that matrimony is such a profound concept, so obviously the
> union of the opposite sexes—the bestowing of the grace of motherhood, as
> you wrote—that we must defend it at all cost.  Any attempt to
> entertain the union of same sex couples, therefore, is ludicrous, for it
> can in no way bestow motherhood."
>
>
>
>
> This whole discussion as our culture has framed it in the last few years
> simply shows how far away we have moved from the real thing; we entered
> into a public discourse (I mean the larger cultural one, not here on F&L)
> like a boxer who has agreed to blindfolded and and to have one arm tied
> around his back. What we should do, in my opinion, is to take our liturgy
> very seriously and begin stating unambiguously exactly what Matrimony is
> and what it is not. We should do that in preaching and teaching, but we
> should also do it as a part of our pastoral counseling and especially in
> pre-marital counseling. When I do pre-marital counseling, and I do a lot
> of it, I spend most of our time in explaining The Form of Solemnization
> of Matrimony. I spend no time on psycho-babble! I explain the rubrics like
> the hugely important ones on 300-302. It is indeed ludicrous for us to let
> the Commonwealth tell us what matrimony is, just as it is ludicrous for us
> to submit to the Commonwealth's definition of when life begins or when
> life ends. But, in my opinion, our first task is to retrieve this treasure
> for our own branch of Christ's Church. And that, I think, will take
> another full generation unless we accept the new liturgies in which case
> the whole opportunity will be lost.
>
> Glenn+
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John S. Longcamp <jlongcamp@...>
> To: faithandlife@...
> Sent: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 1:11 am
> Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] RSVP/RSVP PATHETIC: GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE  -
> JERUSALEM 2008
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Glenn+
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> I’d like
> to invite you to go a little further with your comments on matrimony vs.
> marriage.  I can see two ways of
> viewing this distinction. One is that the term marriage has already become
> such
> a corrupted concept compared to matrimony that the current attempt to have
> it
> include same sex couples can scarcely corrupt it any further.  I believe
> I have seen this
> interpretation expressed in the FaithandLife forum by those who say that
> we
> should let them have their “marriages”, for it isn’t what we
> understand and
> defend in our matrimony.
>
>
>  
>
>
> The other
> is that matrimony is such a profound concept, so obviously the union of
> the
> opposite sexes—the bestowing of the grace of motherhood, as you
> wrote—that we
> must defend it at all cost.  Any
> attempt to entertain the union of same sex couples, therefore, is
> ludicrous, for
> it can in no way bestow motherhood.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Any
> further thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>
>
>  
>
>
> John+
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From:
>   gmspencer@...
>
>
> To: faithandlife@...
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:47 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] RSVP/RSVP
>   PATHETIC: GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE - JERUSALEM 2008
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Father.
>
> gms+
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John S. Longcamp
>   <jlongcamp@...>
> To: faithandlife@...
> Sent:
>   Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] RSVP/RSVP PATHETIC:
>   GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE - JERUSALEM 2008
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for a most interesting and enlightening
>   addition to this discussion of "marriage"!
>
>
>  
>
>
> John+
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From:
>     gmspencer@...
>
>
> To: faithandlife@...
>
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:23
>     PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] RSVP/RSVP
>     PATHETIC: GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE - JERUSALEM 2008
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The
>       meaning of marriage was understood by all.  It does
>       absolutely nothing for the stability of society to change the
> meaning of
>       language to accomodate the few who aren't capable of
>     marriage.
>
>
> I don't mean to butt in
>     when you guys seem to having so much fun, but I would like to point
> out that
>     the constant use of the word "marriage" may be
>     problematic.  Our word is
>     "matrimony" not "marriage." In the Form of Solemnization
>     of Matrimony on page 303, the BCP declares that Christian matrimony is
> a
>     state of being between one man and one woman that represents “the
> spiritual
>     marriage and unity betwixt Christ and the Church…” The word
> “matrimony”
>     comes from the Latin “matrimonium,” which was derived from the
> word for
>     “material” or “substance.” “Substance” is simply that from
> which things are
>     made. The Latin “mater,” which translated means “mother,”
> means the same
>     thing. All of us were made from our mothers. In the Nicene Creed* when
> we
>     profess that Jesus Christ “was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
> Virgin
>     Mary” we are, by professing the “of,” declaring our belief that
> the very
>     material or substance of Christ’s humanity came from his mother
> Mary.
>     Matrimony means Motherhood. It is important to note that the man and
> the
>     woman enter a state matrimony, not patrimony. According to the logic
> of the
>     liturgy of the BCP a maiden (how quaint is that word!) enters the
> state of
>     motherhood when she is married, not when (and if) she actually,
>     biologically, conceives and bears children. The Form of Solemnization
> of
>     Matrimony bestows the grace of “motherhood,” so that she may walk
> faithfully
>     in that vocation. Children do not make a mother; God makes the mother
> so
>     that children have a mother to come to. Our use of the word "marriage"
> is,
>     in my opinion, a capitulation that allows the state to set the terms
> of this
>     debate. Of course I could be wrong.
>
> gms+
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie
>     news, & more!
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate.
> com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate.
> com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news,
>   & more!
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate.
> com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@associate.
> com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>
>