[Mad Dawg]

I think I may have had a thought. I know that's hard to believe, but it has been known to happen ....

You are objecting to our assertion that our clergy have certain charisms associated with their order.

But the charisms are ones you don't believe in - the charism to be a necessary actor in the "confection" of the Eucharist or to pronounce absolution authoritatively.

Is that a fair account of not WHY you object, but of what you object to? And if it is, is it interesting that you are objecting that we assert that our clergy can "do" what you think can't be done anyway?

Okay. Maybe it wasn't a thought after all ....

[Forest Keeper]

You are objecting to our assertion that our clergy have certain charisms associated with their order. But the charisms are ones you don't believe in - the charism to be a necessary actor in the "confection" of the Eucharist or to pronounce absolution authoritatively. Is that a fair account of not WHY you object, but of what you object to? And if it is, is it interesting that you are objecting that we assert that our clergy can "do" what you think can't be done anyway?

Okay. Maybe it wasn't a thought after all ....

It's a fine thought. If I understand the term correctly, then yes, I would object to anyone having (being able to have) the charisms at all, so naturally I would object to anyone claiming to have them. The second has to flow from the first.