Look at his exact statement..."As a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot become a pagan secularist. Nor [implying the second part of a pair] can I abandon the apostolic ministry and sacraments by associating myself with one of the Protestant sects."
Clearly the implication is that for him to "associate himself" with the Protestants would be similar in nature to becoming a pagan because he feels that "as a follower of Jesus Christ" he can not dare do this.
Why don't you ask his to stop by and clarify?
But then, muddling is the "Episcopal way" after all.
Come to think of it, I would imagine that he should have a far harder time "associating himself" with those puerile, Park Avenue heretics. You know, the one's who brought the most stinking, flithy reproach upon the name of Christ and His Church that Christendom has ever seen.
Elevating sodomy to the level of a sacrament and all that.
Dear PetroniusMaximus,
I'm not sure that the author is equating pagan secularism with Protestantism.
When I read it, he says that his faith in Jesus prevents him from becoming a pagan secularist. However, his faith in Jesus doesn't directly prevent him from becoming a Protestant, but rather from abandoning his apostolic ministry, which would be a result of becoming a Protestant.
Furthermore, I don't think he's making a comparison so much as he's saying, here are two alternative routes, and here's why each is unacceptable. For the first, he seems only to say that he can't become a pagan secularist because that is to abandon Jesus. For the second, he's saying that he can't become a Protestant because that would be to abandon his apostolic ministry.
It may not be a whole heck of a lot of distinction, but it's something.
sitetest