Bishop Schneider: "obvious Manipulation" At Synod

[PhuturePriest]

Tell me in that selected quote where what I said hasn't happened. There are transgender clergy in the Anglican church. Titles, on here or elsewhere, probably matter more to you than me. It seems like a way to express frustration, whatever..

I'll be joining a religious institute in the new year.  I follow all the church requires of me on sexual morality, and there's no major issues raised over what I've said I struggle with. I'm open about it and develop by discussing it. I'm not a robot. You can think what you like.

 

There are people doing that. But that doesn't make it right, as you seem to be suggesting in the post.

 

I'll be entering seminary in the next year. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. As I pointed out with the author of that book you recommended, there are priests who are against Church teaching.

[Nihil Obstat]

Tell me in that selected quote where what I said hasn't happened. There are transgender clergy in the Anglican church. Titles, on here or elsewhere, probably matter more to you than me. It seems like a way to express frustration, whatever..

Anglicans and Episcopalians have no true clergy. :|

[Benedictus]

 

Quote

 

A friend of mine looked those people up. Marcella Althaus-Reid is not Catholic, and was described as a "quee.r god" (literal quote form the google search). Fr Robert Goss is a 70's Jesuit and wrote a book called "Queering Christ" and a q.ueer bible and is very pro-gay. Both are anti-Catholic, and their works should most certainly not be recommended to anyone on a Catholic website.

 

You choose now to cross thread and not discuss this at the time, OK. So it wasn't what I said, but the author I mentioned? Those people are leading writers in their fields, which is why I gave them as examples. They were relevant to the topic. The areas they write on are contentious to some, less to others. I never said I agree with them on everything or that I've read everything about them. People can look, if they choose, and reflect on this for themselves.

In all areas, even Catholic seminary, you'll need to read books that are seen as anti catholic. I don't think you'll understand all the theological developments and situations if you didn't. Most will need to do units, or parts, on LGBT, Feminist and Process theology at some point etc. Much would be contrary to what the church sees as valid. But it is often studied nevertheless. I'm not clear why you take the view that's it 's better to ignore and not read subjects, or people, simply because they disagree with beliefs you hold. Reading people who disagree with you should help make your beliefs, and why you hold them, stronger and clearer. Not everything a person says, even if they are anti Catholic, is tainted by that position either
 

 

There are people doing that. But that doesn't make it right, as you seem to be suggesting in the post.

 

I'll be entering seminary in the next year. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. As I pointed out with the author of that book you recommended, there are priests who are against Church teaching.

I didn't say it was right. I also don't tend to tell people what they have to do either, and especially not on forums. I'm not a control freak. A book is just a book, all sorts of books can be helpful. Not all answers are found in theological books.
 

I thought it amusing you'd desire someone to have a religious and phishy label at the same time. Plus I actually do follow the church teaching myself on core matters, despite people probably assuming I don't. So I was simply clarifying as people can be quick to anger and judge.

[PhuturePriest]

You choose now to cross thread and not discuss this at the time, OK. So it wasn't what I said, but the author I mentioned? Those people are leading writers in their fields, which is why I gave them as examples. They were relevant to the topic. The areas they write on are contentious to some, less to others. I never said I agree with them on everything or that I've read everything about them. People can look, if they choose, and reflect on this for themselves.

In all areas, even Catholic seminary, you'll need to read books that are seen as anti catholic. I don't think you'll understand all the theological developments and situations if you didn't. Most will need to do units, or parts, on LGBT, Feminist and Process theology at some point etc. Much would be contrary to what the church sees as valid. But it is often studied nevertheless. I'm not clear why you take the view that's it 's better to ignore and not read subjects, or people, simply because they disagree with beliefs you hold. Reading people who disagree with you should help make your beliefs, and why you hold them, stronger and clearer. Not everything a person says, even if they are anti Catholic, is tainted by that position either
 

 

I didn't say it was right. I also don't tend to tell people what they have to do either, and especially not on forums. I'm not a control freak. A book is just a book, all sorts of books can be helpful. Not all answers are found in theological books.
 

I thought it amusing you'd desire someone to have a religious and phishy label at the same time. Plus I actually do follow the church teaching myself on core matters, despite people probably assuming I don't. So I was simply clarifying as people can be quick to anger and judge.

 

There is nothing wrong with reading a book that has a core message which is against Church teaching. There is something wrong with recommending someone who is struggling with something to read a book that will recommend him to disobey Church teaching.

 

I don't care if you're religious, clergy, laymen, or even the Pope. If you're phishy, you're phishy, and you deserve a phishy tag regardless of your vocation if you are not in accordance with Church teaching. I find it amusing that you think being a religious and/or clergymen makes someone above such a tedious thing as being labeled a heretic.

Edited November 7, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Benedictus]

Anglicans and Episcopalians have no true clergy. :|

 

Valid, but illicit. Indeed.

[Benedictus]

There is nothing wrong with reading a book that has a core message which is against Church teaching. There is something wrong with recommending someone who is struggling with something to read a book that will recommend him to disobey Church teaching.

 

I don't care if you're religious, clergy, laymen, or even the Pope. If you're phishy, you're phishy, and you deserve a phishy tag regardless of your vocation if you are not in accordance with Church teaching. I find it amusing that you think being a religious and/or clergymen makes someone above such a tedious thing as being labeled a heretic.

 

Reading a book will make someone a heretic? OK. Don't read any books, esp on topics that you find hard. Where does the author say to not follow church teaching in their books? Why would someone listen anyway?

I don't think that about clergy at all. It's more funny you think forum titles make a difference either way. You decide what someone needs and deserves because you say so? Give me a break.
First you posted I made claims of something in another thread, which you quoted. Then you moved onto saying I shouldn't have mentioned that author, although you said nothing at the time within that thread. Despite the fact that to understand that area of thought you need to read some of those books. You seem to be getting flustered because I'm not jumping as high as you expect. That's just too bad.




 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Benedictus

[Amppax]

Valid, but illicit. Indeed.

 

No actually. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

[PhuturePriest]

Reading a book will make someone a heretic? OK. Don't read any books, esp on topics that you find hard. Where does the author say to not follow church teaching in their books? Why would someone listen anyway?

I don't think that about clergy at all. It's more funny you think forum titles make a difference either way. You decide what someone needs and deserves because you say so? Give me a break.
First you posted I made claims of something in another thread, which you quoted. Then you moved onto saying I shouldn't have mentioned that author, although you said nothing at the time within that thread. Despite the fact that to understand that area of thought you need to read some of those books. You seem to be getting flustered because I'm not jumping as high as you expect. That's just too bad.




 

 

That's not what I said and you know it. Or, at least, I hope you do, as I was quite clear. Reading a book doesn't make you a heretic. Recommending a book which is contrary to Church teaching and praising it makes your theological loyalties questionable at best.

 

The importance of the tags is letting other people know if they can trust the person to be solidly in line with Church teaching or not. You are questionable at best, and are riding the phishy line really hard at worst. I'm not the only one who thinks this, and I know a Mediator of Meh who agrees with me.

 

I didn't read it at the time it was done, it was reported to me by another member. I gave my support to penguin in that thread and then left it at that. I was unaware such books were being recommended.

[veritasluxmea]

In all areas, even Catholic seminary, you'll need to read books that are seen as anti catholic. I don't think you'll understand all the theological developments and situations if you didn't. Most will need to do units, or parts, on LGBT, Feminist and Process theology at some point etc. Much would be contrary to what the church sees as valid. But it is often studied nevertheless. I'm not clear why you take the view that's it 's better to ignore and not read subjects, or people, simply because they disagree with beliefs you hold. Reading people who disagree with you should help make your beliefs, and why you hold them, stronger and clearer. Not everything a person says, even if they are anti Catholic, is tainted by that position either

 

The way the books were presented, to an average reader (me) it sounds as though you were recommending the books as examples of how to think about transgender issues. Instead of saying, "here are some books that present a worldview contrary to Church Teaching, let's study them to understand it" the post read as "You're not going to find the affirmation to live as you want from the Catholic Church, read these books to find it instead." Obviously, that's wrong. 

 

 

I didn't say it was right. I also don't tend to tell people what they have to do either, and especially not on forums. I'm not a control freak. 

There are a lot of gray areas in the Church, but Church doctrine isn't one of them. It is right, and anything against it is wrong and should be presented as such. You don't need to tell people what they need to do. We have Jesus for that. 

 

I thought it amusing you'd desire someone to have a religious and phishy label at the same time. 

 

I hope no religious would ever need a phishy label, in the forums or real life, but if they did, and it's perfectly possible as in the example of Fr Robert Goss, I also hope it would be dealt with swiftly and severely. 

 

Plus I actually do follow the church teaching myself on core matters, despite people probably assuming I don't. So I was simply clarifying as people can be quick to anger and judge.

 

I believe you do. It's just hard to tell from the way the post was written. Whether you disagree or agree with the Church, clarification and honesty from the start is good, for all of us. 

 

And yes, Anglican orders are invalid because they do not have apostolic succession. Shortly after their break from the Church they changed the form and words of ordination and lost succession. 

[Benedictus]

No actually. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

 

No I mean the sacraments they give maybe valid, but illicit. The Catholic church can't say Anglican ordinations are valid (even if there is apostolic succession),  and also because Anglicans ordain women. I think the situation is similar for the Orthodox, but I'm not sure. I think there is some debate over the validity of Catholic priests who become Anglicans. Likewise if a Catholic Bishop ordains people not sanctioned by the church. But I think it's a complicated area, Canon lawyers terrain.
 

[KnightofChrist]

I didn't see that written. Do you think all Christians who aren't Catholics, and don't want to be affiliated to the institution, lack faith? I don't remember Pope Benedict saying this when he sat through a service in Westminster Abbey. I didn't see Pope Francis say this when he sent a video message to Evangelical leaders. Do you think Jesus, the God of love, gets flustered because people go to an Episcopal church instead of a Catholic one?
 

 

When someone says they may leave the Church that's a red flag that they may be having a crisis of Faith. There's really nothing more to add to it. Christ does not want anyone to leave the protection of His one true Bride.

[Nihil Obstat]

Anglicans do not retain valid apostolic succession or ordination. Their baptisms are valid, of course, but their ordinations, communion, confessions (if they still even have it) are definitively not.

The Orthodox do have apostolic succession, do have valid ordination, and all their sacraments are presumtively valid.

[Credo in Deum]

Anglicans do not retain valid apostolic succession or ordination. Their baptisms are valid, of course, but their ordinations, communion, confessions (if they still even have it) are definitively not.

 

 

Lutherans would fall under the same boat as well, because neither side during their ordination make any reference to sacrifice, correct? 

[Benedictus]

That's not what I said and you know it. Or, at least, I hope you do, as I was quite clear. Reading a book doesn't make you a heretic. Recommending a book which is contrary to Church teaching and praising it makes your theological loyalties questionable at best.

 

The importance of the tags is letting other people know if they can trust the person to be solidly in line with Church teaching or not. You are questionable at best, and are riding the phishy line really hard at worst. I'm not the only one who thinks this, and I know a Mediator of Meh who agrees with me.

 

I didn't read it at the time it was done, it was reported to me by another member. I gave my support to penguin in that thread and then left it at that. I was unaware such books were being recommended.

That is how I took what you said. I don't see what I've said, and what you've quoted, as being outside church teaching. That accusation is thrown around a lot. I didn't praise the authors or their books. But if a book is relevant, even one by Martin Luther himself, then I'd quote it. The issue is whether people can debate theology and be honest of where they are at, or not. Some people don't like it or disagree, which is fair enough. But some people seem to want to control and silence through negative tactics when they can't get their own way. What they say should stand on its own feet if it's worthy of consideration. Maybe if a meh, or the person who messaged you so gladly about that other thread, tried sending a message to me (maybe even a chat or clarification in charity) it would be more productive than a page of snipping comments or threats of forum labels. :wacko:
 

[Benedictus]

Anglicans do not retain valid apostolic succession or ordination. Their baptisms are valid, of course, but their ordinations, communion, confessions (if they still even have it) are definitively not.

The Orthodox do have apostolic succession, do have valid ordination, and all their sacraments are presumtively valid.

 

Thanks for clarification Nihil