Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that is absolutely key, and the unwillingness to do that is part of the neo-gnosticism I’ve been talking about that riddles the Church. That’s why I’ve codified that willingness into my signature the understanding that I personally could be wrong about anything, and a willingness to be corrected by genuine authority.
No, it is NOT a pastoral issue and that is precisely Archbishop Peter's point. The priest is to follow the bishop's guidance and direction. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for a priest to receive everyone by baptism if a bishop explicitly tells him to receive them via chrismation if they were previously baptized in the Holy Trinity? If a bishop tells you to church female babies into the altar and you only do so for male babies then is that acceptable? This turns into a slippery slope almost instantaneously and is not our tradition within the church.
Archbishop Peter flat out said that it can be given at his discretion for pastoral reasons given people's consciences.
I somehow doubt given how he phrased it that this was a matter of that, and that, no, we don't need specifics in a pastoral letter? Given that he said he sent the details to who he presumed was the authority over the reverend archpriest Peter Heers, it seems he took the right steps.
Agreed. He is not endorsing the ephraimite practice which is rebaptism everyone if they are so willing.
You've been sneaking around with women in the parish haven't you? If your response isn't touche, you're a hypocrite and if a mod even considers acting, they condemn Archbishop Peter who has done the same.
I'm not understanding your most recent response.
Let me spell it out some more, because I'm not serious. The point is, if it is insulting for me to accuse anyone here of "sneaking around with women in the parish," then isn't what Vladika did insulting?
His argument is essentially that Abp Peter did not disclose sufficient detail to identify the incidents or did not disclose the evidence. You must consider what we're dealing with here.
The difference is that the letter strongly implies he has the details of the incidents in question while you know that you have no evidence of such? I mean, the epistemic position you take here would also say that providing the details would be irrelevant since those could also be made up? He gave a sufficient explanation and I find it frankly odd to take such umbrage to these few words which imply he has sufficient basis to act:
indeed. I have had Protestants (baptized in a Trinitarian formula with water) want to be received via baptism, and I say no because the bishop says chrismation. and then I just shrug because it’s the bishop’s parish and not mine.
So repeating rumors is a "sufficient explanation?" Golden rule, my friend. You ain't following it.
