Church of England lifts ban on gay bishops

[meltzerboy]

Church of England lifts ban on gay bishops.

that is the topic,what i cannot get my head around is this.if you are gay,you are gay.if you are a ex-gay then thats another thing.

you cannot hid behind this title of being gay,but not doing the actions.its madness in my view.

drunk…ex- drunk.

druggie…ex-druggie.

smoker…ex-smoker.

but this is saying
gay…gay.

or is this just me?

One can be gay and chaste, that is, have SSA but not act on it by engaging in homosexual behavior in a gay relationship. I think (but don’t know for sure) one is permitted to be a bishop in this case prior to the present decision. What this decision adds, if I understand it correctly, is that a gay person currently in a civil partnership is also permitted to become bishop, provided they remain celibate in the partnership. That takes it one step further since the Church is basically saying there is nothing morally unacceptable about being in a gay relationship so long as one does not engage in sexual relations. The next step would most likely be that being in a gay relationship WITH sexual relations is acceptable.

 

[doormouse73]

One can be gay and chaste, that is, have SSA but not act on it by engaging in homosexual behavior in a gay relationship. I think (but don’t know for sure) one is permitted to be a bishop in this case prior to the present decision. What this decision adds, if I understand it correctly, is that a gay person currently in a civil partnership is also permitted to become bishop, provided they remain celibate in the partnership. That takes it one step further since the Church is basically saying there is nothing morally unacceptable about being in a gay relationship so long as one does not engage in sexual relations. The next step would most likely be that being in a gay relationship WITH sexual relations is acceptable.

hello meltzerboy

so basically its a gate way move for the inevitable within the C of E Church.

then i have another question,is it Gods church or is it the goverments ?

 

[meltzerboy]

hello meltzerboy

so basically its a gate way move for the inevitable within the C of E Church.

then i have another question,is it Gods church or is it the goverments ?

I don’t know whether your question is rhetorical, but even though it is G-d’s Church (with some governmental control, I believe), it is my impression that the Church of England has evolved in its thinking about issues such as this, since certain kinds of change are part of its religious teaching. Admittedly though, I am no expert on any of this.

 

[doormouse73]

I don’t know whether your question is rhetorical, but even though it is G-d’s Church (with some governmental control, I believe), it is my impression that the Church of England has evolved in its thinking about issues such as this, since certain kinds of change are part of its religious teaching. Admittedly though, I am no expert on any of this.

its just a question.

its just that how can goverment issues change the word of God?

other than politicians using it for votes.because the Cof E parishioners will vote with there feet,im sure of it.

the church of Scotland went the same way. goverment got involved and up to 95% of the congregation left.

link… anglican-mainstream.net/category/church-of-scotland/

The persecution by the Church of Scotland of St George’s Tron, a thriving evangelical church in Glasgow city centre, reveals the ugly face of liberal bigotry. This ogre will haunt the Church of England if its militant liberal wing wins the argument over gay marriage.

St George’s, now called The Tron Church, has left the Church of Scotland because of the decision by its General Assembly to accept practising homosexual ministers. The congregation has moved out of its building on which it has spent a lot of money recently refurbishing but, not content with that, the Church of Scotland has resorted to legal action over disputed assets.

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t understand why this is a big deal for Catholics who accept niether Anglican orders or apostolic succsesion.

Is this just an example or derision of homosexuals in general?

 

[doormouse73]

every week at mass,i/we say one holy CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.(im not shouting,just highlighting)

we are all Christians.this is not what Jesus would have wanted,or did he teach.

btw…you are totaly wrong on the Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

source. catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

 

[dolphinlove]

I spoke to a priest before mass earlier who basically told me he doesn’t believe there’s a hope for us any more. He basically said we should just go to Rome and keep quiet about our beliefs on universal jurisdiction, infallibility, the Marian dogmas and other things besides and just go to Rome because at least they will still have the apostolic succession and a Eucharist.

It was heartbreaking to hear, but he might be right.

I wouldnt be surprised if in the next 100 - 200 years, the Anglican church will cease to exist and the remainder either convert to Catholicism or other denominations. I know this sounds harsh, but I have conversed with quite a few COE followers who hate seeing these changes take place and feel really disheartened.

For it to survive, it needs to stop pandering to political correctness and stand for what Jesus really taught us in scripture. Not move the goldpost cause society wants them too.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Please can everyone who reads this say a prayer for us in the Church of England. I believe that the political correctness ideology is nothing less than the work of the Great Deceiver himself, who wields a strong influence over our political establishment.

Good Lord, deliver us.

Their report did nothing but reiterate what has long been the case: sexual activity for senior church leaders is reserved for the context of marriage; the un-married must remain celibate. But that’s not what the mainstream media have read into it, and neither is it what the polarised wings of the Church of England have gleaned from it.

see archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/homosexuality-is-issue-blown-out-of-all.html?m=1

 

[Indifferently]

Their report did nothing but reiterate what has long been the case: sexual activity for senior church leaders is reserved for the context of marriage; the un-married must remain celibate. But that’s not what the mainstream media have read into it, and neither is it what the polarised wings of the Church of England have gleaned from it.

see archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/homosexuality-is-issue-blown-out-of-all.html?m=1

So we’re told. But homosexual bishops living in civil partnerships are NOT going to be celibate.

 

[SteveVH]

Please can everyone who reads this say a prayer for us in the Church of England. I believe that the political correctness ideology is nothing less than the work of the Great Deceiver himself, who wields a strong influence over our political establishment.

Good Lord, deliver us.

You are in my prayers.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I an a way, I would say this Church of England measure is worse than Gay bishops!

If a Bishop has same-sex attraction and he’s celibate, then I don’t care. (In fact he’s a role model.)

If a Bishop has same-sex attraction and he’s engaging in persistent fornication, then that’s bad.

If a Bishop has same-sex attraction and he’s claiming to not be engaging in persistent fornication but is claiming to be in a celibate non-sexual relationship with a partner that just happens to coincidentally also have same-sex attraction and we’re all supposed to think this isn’t preposterous, then that’s really bad, not only for the bishop but for those that maintain the farce.

I have to say that I don’t really understand the controversy here. Why is everyone assuming that it will be a “farce”? If you think that any person, homosexual or heterosexual, will take his promises that lightly, well then clearly that person has low moral standards and doesn’t deserve to be a bishop in the first place.

 

[SteveVH]

I have to say that I don’t really understand the controversy here. Why is everyone assuming that it will be a “farce”?

Because of that little thing called “human nature”.

 

[benjohnson]

I have to say that I don’t really understand the controversy here. Why is everyone assuming that it will be a “farce”? If you think that any person, homosexual or heterosexual, will take his promises that lightly, well then clearly that person has low moral standards and doesn’t deserve to be a bishop in the first place.

Because a person same sex attraction who is celibate has no need of a “monogamous partnership.” If they are truly living a celibate life, they have “friends” and would have no need of a relationship that is based on a mockery of marriage.

 

[guanophore]

Please can everyone who reads this say a prayer for us in the Church of England. I believe that the political correctness ideology is nothing less than the work of the Great Deceiver himself, who wields a strong influence over our political establishment.

Good Lord, deliver us.

I pray for you always, but I also pray now that such a move might serve to move Anglicans beyond any remaining misgivings, and return to communion with the Bishop of Rome!

 

[Porknpie]

I have to say that I don’t really understand the controversy here. Why is everyone assuming that it will be a “farce”? If you think that any person, homosexual or heterosexual, will take his promises that lightly, well then clearly that person has low moral standards and doesn’t deserve to be a bishop in the first place.

Bran,

The controversy is an old one: who has the authority to set what is a moral standard? Christ said to bring disputes to “the Church”. There’s 38,000 Christian denominations…to which Church? To which church did Christ promise to send the Holy Spirit to, to guide it to all Truth?

 

[Bran_Stark]

Because of that little thing called “human nature”.

So you think that it’s irresistible human nature for people to engage in sexual acts? That’s an awfully strange position for a Catholic to take, I have to say. I am sure there are many hypocritical priests (both Anglican and Catholic) who secretly engage in sinful relationships, but there are also many faithful priests (both Anglican and Catholic) who are successfully able to withstand such temptations.

Bran,

The controversy is an old one: who has the authority to set what is a moral standard? Christ said to bring disputes to “the Church”. There’s 38,000 Christian denominations…to which Church? To which church did Christ promise to send the Holy Spirit to, to guide it to all Truth?

I don’t think that’s relevant to this immediate discussion, though, since both the Catholic Church and the Church of England currency hold the same official position, that homosexual behaviour is sinful

 

[nitesnake]

The controversy is an old one: who has the authority to set what is a moral standard?

The Holy See. Given to St. Peter directly from Christ Himself and handed down to every pope since then.

Christ said to bring disputes to “the Church”. There’s 38,000 Christian denominations…to which Church? To which church did Christ promise to send the Holy Spirit to, to guide it to all Truth?

The Catholic church. The one He entrusted to St. Peter. It’s in most any secular history book. Look it up.

 

[nitesnake]

How can his question be rhetorical in any way? He asked specifically *which * church held the “truth.” I answered him, specifically: The Catholic Church. I said that most any secular history book would tell him that. How can that possibly be construed as a rhetorical question?

 

[Jimmy_B]

latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-church-of-england-lifts-ban-on-gay-bishops-20130104,0,2806956.story

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment: And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. And reducing the cities of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhites into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, And delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked: For in sight and hearing he was just, dwelling among them who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented: And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming. Whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment. But these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption: Receiving the reward of their injustice, counting for a pleasure the delights of a day: stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you: Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls: having their heart exercised with covetousness: children of malediction. Leaving the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor who loved the wages of iniquity, But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which, speaking with man’s voice, forbade the folly of the prophet. These are fountains without water and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved. For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
(2 Peter 2:4-22 DRB)

Wow! :nope:

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to attend RCIA. This is no pressure to join and would give one time for discernment. One should not join the church while holding such doubts…

It is permissible to have mental reservations about doctrine. If one is willing to embrace the faith, while praying “Lord, help my unbelief” then one may grow in faith. These issues have divided the Angican communion from the Bishop of Rome for 500 years, and will not be resolve overnight.

But the lack of communion with the visible sign of unity appointed by Christ in the successor of Cephas has continued to bear the fruit of separation and division, and gradual slide in to sin and error. At some point, the increasing pace through the gates of hell may become alarming enough for the victims, though still in doubt, to jump into the Ark.