In the interest of fairness, I'm posting a link to De Cura Animarum so that my readers may read the ongoing dialogue between Fr. Al Kimel and me. He is invited to post directly to my blog if he so wishes.
By way of a trailer to my counter-response, I'll simply say that Fr. Kimel is asking the wrong question.
Postscript: It is interesting to note that Fr. Kimel did not actually choose to respond to my article "Al Kimel's Comments on My Recent Entries," but rather chose to continue his critique of my original article "Personal Reflections on Remaining in TEC," which obviously was not intended to be anything more than a brief rationale for staying in TEC and the Anglican Communion rather than throwing my lot in with GAFCON. Quite frankly, I think my response to Kimel provides much better material for a debate between a Roman and an Anglican. But perhaps there are issues that I raised in that article that he would rather not address.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well.
It seems he will have to speak without contradicting Vatican II's ecclesiology, which might be difficult, given that he seems to want to make a clean, binary distinction in terms of esse sufficient to completely unchurch Episcopalians.
He may also have to ignore the significance of the distinction between (a)Christ being with the Church always, and (b)Christ chastising the church because he loves it. That is, it seems Christ may remain sufficiently present in the church he punishes, which implies deserving punishment--say for material heresy--does not alone entail abandonment.
Anyhow, let's hope he says something new soon; summer is draining away.
Your comment deserves a wider viewing, Scotus. I'll post it to the front page. Thanks.
Dan
Post a Comment