Comments on: Bush the universalist http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/ We are Flesh-and-Spirit on a journey to Integral Unity with God. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:31:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Fr. Ernesto http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1167 Fr. Ernesto Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:21:38 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1167 One only needs to look at the hit job done on Obama's pastor to see how easy it is to report your bias and close your eyes to anything else. Then the typical game was played of trying to get Obama to disown his pastor. If he did not disown then he must agree with his pastor's unbalanced statements. If he did disown, then you know that Obama has no loyalty and that you cannot trust him. Both right and left have devolved into pure slanted reporting, looking to gain advantage. Religion is simply one more tool. Sign me cynical! One only needs to look at the hit job done on Obama’s pastor to see how easy it is to report your bias and close your eyes to anything else. Then the typical game was played of trying to get Obama to disown his pastor. If he did not disown then he must agree with his pastor’s unbalanced statements. If he did disown, then you know that Obama has no loyalty and that you cannot trust him.

Both right and left have devolved into pure slanted reporting, looking to gain advantage. Religion is simply one more tool.

Sign me cynical!

]]> By: Huw http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1165 Huw Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:06:04 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1165 Chris - you are right about the Orthodox Bishop saying "if so-and-so is not a communicant in good standing in his own diocese.." But so far only Abp Burke has said this... I know he's trying to get *all* the RC Bps to say this too. Which uniformity would be a good thing (and impossible in Orthodox land :-)) Chris - you are right about the Orthodox Bishop saying “if so-and-so is not a communicant in good standing in his own diocese..”

But so far only Abp Burke has said this… I know he’s trying to get *all* the RC Bps to say this too. Which uniformity would be a good thing (and impossible in Orthodox land :-))

]]> By: Chris Jones http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1163 Chris Jones Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:18:42 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/2007/10/08/bush-the-universalist/#comment-1163 I hadn't actually read Abp Burke's remarks about Giuliani until I followed the link in your post. And now that I have read what he actually said, I find it a good deal less "controversial" than one might think. According to the article, the Archbishop said: <i>If any politician approached me and he'd been admonished not to present himself, I'd not give it</i> The key phrase there is "if he had been admonished not to present himself." Abp Burke isn't taking it upon himself to judge a politician (or anybody else) on reputation alone. On the contrary, he is indicating that he would respect the authority of the bishop (or the person's father confessor) who had "admonished" him not to present himself for communion. The scenario envisaged here is clearly one in which a person has been admonished because he has, either by persistent denial of the Church's teachings or by unrepentant sin, placed himself outside of the communion of the Church. The authority to make that judgment doesn't belong to Abp Burke, and he isn't claiming it. It belongs to the person's bishop and to the priest whom the bishop has licensed to hear confessions. Abp Burke is only saying, if so-and-so is not a communicant in good standing in his own diocese, we won't commune him in my diocese either. And I <i>do</i> think an Orthodox bishop would say the same. I hadn’t actually read Abp Burke’s remarks about Giuliani until I followed the link in your post. And now that I have read what he actually said, I find it a good deal less “controversial” than one might think. According to the article, the Archbishop said:

If any politician approached me and he’d been admonished not to present himself, I’d not give it

The key phrase there is “if he had been admonished not to present himself.” Abp Burke isn’t taking it upon himself to judge a politician (or anybody else) on reputation alone. On the contrary, he is indicating that he would respect the authority of the bishop (or the person’s father confessor) who had “admonished” him not to present himself for communion.

The scenario envisaged here is clearly one in which a person has been admonished because he has, either by persistent denial of the Church’s teachings or by unrepentant sin, placed himself outside of the communion of the Church. The authority to make that judgment doesn’t belong to Abp Burke, and he isn’t claiming it. It belongs to the person’s bishop and to the priest whom the bishop has licensed to hear confessions.

Abp Burke is only saying, if so-and-so is not a communicant in good standing in his own diocese, we won’t commune him in my diocese either. And I do think an Orthodox bishop would say the same.

]]>