anglican catholic theology, devotion, news, miscellanea
He's certainly not the first PH ECUSA has had but he's certainly presided over some noisy heresy!You know my position on Robinson's disqualification as a Bishop: before he left the closet he left his family. That's enough! Away with him and the PH too!
I love it. But I am allowed to love it, being a layman. You are a priest, and it simply doesn't do, to have a cheeky priest.
Unacceptable, Will. Totally unaccepatable and a humorless caprice that is beneath a clergyman. You said the event in Pittsburgh was sad; this attitude is why it is sad. For shame.Lucas Grubbs+
Deacon Lucas,No, that's not why Pittsburgh was sad. It was sad because it was so obvious there that ECUSA is falling apart and because I love ECUSA. And it was sad because the foundation of the Communion is being shaken to the point of fracture. And ++Griswold is the main catalyst of this destruction. He is in a real sense its architect. He HAS gone off into heresy. He does preside over ECUSA. I therefore do not think it inappropriate to refer to him as the Presiding Heresiarch. I.e. he is a heresiarch; and he does preside.Am I wrong sardonically and harmlessly to express my anger at the destruction of the Church that has been my home since I was born? Or, if not its immediate destruction, at least its being rendered uninhabitable for thousands of people, including me.
Father WB,I do indeed question your method of expression in this case. I have always respected though not necessarily agreed with your blog. For the most part I have found it systematic, evenhanded and mature. You have established 'Whitehall' as a place where a valid and concerned voice of ECUSA can be heard in a mature and developed way. My revulsion to the "heresiarch" post comes not from your desire to call a spade a spade, but from the caricaturizing manner in which you felt compelled to do this. There is an undeniable air of immaturity to this post that is unnecessary and trite; something I was surprised to see on Whitehall. The blog known as The Rome Report developed this so-called heresiarch-Google-bomb, an action labeled by its creator as "immature, but fun anyway." (see the ‘Hoozah’ link on the post in question) Not what I would call a good starting point for entering into commentary about the presiding bishop if one is to be taken seriously. (Since when have the concerned clergy and laity of the Church resorted to computer hacker techniques in order to make a statement?)Father WB, the situation at hand is just as sad for those who love ECUSA as much as you but perhaps share different views. You have every right and cause to express your concerns...sardonically even. But when sardonically doing so, please know that it is not in fact "harmless" as you suggest, but rather off-putting and counterproductive.Respectfully,Lucas Grubbs+
Oh, for Heaven's sake, Lucas, lighten up. It's the blogosphere. You are getting your knickers in a twist and taking this far too seriously. Frank old boy has it coming. If he can't take the heat, he can stay out of the fire, instead of going around fanning the flames.
Post a Comment