tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post115021258428315537..comments2023-12-25T10:39:26.102-06:00Comments on Timotheos Prologizes: Meeting with the ModeratorFr Timothy Matkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10794558184459092532noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post-1150250282486199922006-06-13T20:58:00.000-05:002006-06-13T20:58:00.000-05:00Fr Matkin,You ask for my thoughts...well, my thoug...Fr Matkin,<BR/><BR/>You ask for my thoughts...well, my thought is that my ecclesiology is as clear as mud. Good thing I'm going off to a good seminary and will have a chance to work it out. <BR/><BR/>I believe secularism is essentially the opposite of holiness (insofar as holiness can be defined as being set apart from the secular world...therefore being a bit tautological). Secularism is therefore not an option for the church if it wants to stay the church in any real sense. But, it would be well to have an option other than Rome, unless there is truly only one catholicism. I don't believe that Rome gets everything right, but I do believe they're just about as well off as the Eastern churches, and a lot better off than ECUSA right at the moment (that's more of a call to mission for the faithful in ECUSA than anything else, but that's a digression). <BR/><BR/>Schism is bad. It's a failure of the one Body of Christ to be the one Body of Christ. The question isn't really whether we should reunite, but on what terms. Does everyone have to chuck their traditions and learn to love the Novus Ordo? Can we find intellectual unity within the limits of Holy Tradition? Or is there some way forward that is, well, more likely to succeed? <BR/><BR/>I am so far from having the answers to these questions, I don't even know if they're the right questions to be asking. We've all had many friends convert to other traditions, and depending on how this week goes, we might see more. <BR/><BR/>(PS--sorry for confusing your words with Bp Duncan. I couldn't tell if you were quoting him speaking in the first person or not...my first clue should have been the lack of quotation marks, but there you go...)Chris Coucheron-Aamothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187101735451408796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post-1150249025599518942006-06-13T20:37:00.000-05:002006-06-13T20:37:00.000-05:00Adam,Good question. Bp Duncan didn't wait for the ...Adam,<BR/><BR/>Good question. Bp Duncan didn't wait for the question to come up. After thanking us for fighting the good fight long before others who are now engaged in the fight for orthodoxy, he stated the following (quoted as best as I can remember): "In the Network, we are committed to having the open process of reception on the issue of the ordination of women that we never truly had in the Episcopal Church. That could mean we come to the conclusion that it is the right thing, or that it is the wrong thing."<BR/><BR/>He did not go into his personal views (which is certainly in favor, as he does ordain women), but I suspect it may be something that he has personally started to rethink, along with the wisdom of the new liturgies. But that is just my own guess, and I don't think he would say more than that, given that he has female priests in his diocese. If he came to the non-ordianing conclusion, I suspect his policy would be to phase the practice out by attrition, like the AMiA.Fr Timothy Matkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10794558184459092532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post-1150224924428549902006-06-13T13:55:00.000-05:002006-06-13T13:55:00.000-05:00Did +Duncan have anything to say about the ordinat...Did +Duncan have anything to say about the ordination of women? It seems to me that a bishop that ordains women, like he does, is in an odd position to lead the "orthodox" camp. Any thoughts?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03707206974769671189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post-1150223012950222362006-06-13T13:23:00.000-05:002006-06-13T13:23:00.000-05:00Chris,As you will note, the text reads "I suggeste...Chris,<BR/><BR/>As you will note, the text reads "I suggested."<BR/><BR/>It was my own comment that I offered for everyone's consideration. He listened, but did not have much to say in response (which I expected, since it was probably not addressed before). I brought it up because I think it is something that we should think and talk about. If we are to "move forward," the long-term direction and vision for the church should be considered. Perhaps 500 years from now, there will be an end to schism, and all this will be looked back upon as a detour.<BR/><BR/>What are your thoughts?Fr Timothy Matkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10794558184459092532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11611854.post-1150221773263408032006-06-13T13:02:00.000-05:002006-06-13T13:02:00.000-05:00There is a need for a new common authority. In res...<I>There is a need for a new common authority. In response to this, I suggested that it may be time to be vocal about calling for the end of schism which has plagued our tradition for 500 years.</I><BR/>This sounds like +Pittsburgh is thinking about swimming the Tiber. Does he really think that the natural outcome of the current crisis will be the reunion of the orthodox elements of ECUSA with the See of Rome? This seems to say that our only options are secularism or romanism...is this really where his thinking is now?Chris Coucheron-Aamothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187101735451408796noreply@blogger.com