First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

[Gerry_Hunter]

And yet there are Anglicans who affirm precisely that Orders constitute a sacrament, and hold precisely to the concept of the sacrificing priesthood exercising those Orders in the other appropriate sacraments.

Depends on the Anglicans. In generalizing, you will be, generally, wrong.

GKC

The main thing is that Anglicans are the ones that can generalize on the nature of Holy Orders, and not thereby do anything that constitutes denying Anglicanism. Catholics cannot.

To put it another way, there is a Catholic understanding of Holy Orders. It is specific, and denying it impairs one’s communion with the Catholic Church. Perhaps I would have been more accurate to state that there is not, within Anglicanism, a completely acknowledged understanding as to the nature of Holy Orders to deny. There are opinions, and differences among them, yet all is still “Anglican.”

The telling phrase is, “Depends on the Anglicans.”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[GKC]

The main thing is that Anglicans are the ones that can generalize on the nature of Holy Orders, and not thereby do anything that constitutes denying Anglicanism. Catholics cannot.

To put it another way, there is a Catholic understanding of Holy Orders. It is specific, and denying it impairs one’s communion with the Catholic Church. Perhaps I would have been more accurate to state that there is not, within Anglicanism, a completely acknowledged understanding as to the nature of Holy Orders to deny. There are opinions, and differences among them, yet all is still “Anglican.”

The telling phrase is, “Depends on the Anglicans.”

Blessings,

Gerry

Not much I’d differ with, here.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve been attending a wonderful Episcopal Church. The leadership is vibrant and conservative.

These latest ordinations are very unsettling. I have great compassion for those of same sex affections, and I really do not know whether homosexuality is a result of genetics, environment, choice, a combination of all three, or something else entirely. I do not want any group to be excluded from the life of the Church. I don’t want to discriminate against any group. However, this liberal move to ordain an openly lesbian Bishop is heartbreaking, as it seems in direct contradiction with Orthodox Christianity. Perhaps I am wrong.

I thought I had finally found my place within Christianity. I may be packing once again. Need to spend much time in prayer. This is a sad time for me and many Episcopalians in the Anglican Communion.

Anna

I’ve read all the posts, since yesterday. I’m really so upset about this ordination; I am at a loss for words–doesn’t happen very often.

Anna

 

[theodre_the_cop]

Gays are already in the ministry of ALL religions, and have done a fine job. Maybe it is time we just admit it and openly acknowledge it? They are parents, soldiers, teachers, doctors, preachers.

no not in all religions there is no gay preists in my oriental orthodox church it is said in the bible ((7 Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is near unto Me, saith the LORD of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered; and I will turn My hand upon the little ones)) zachariah 13:7
how can a blind lead others to salvation

homosexuality is forbiddened by god ((22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.))Leviticus 18:22 can god be more clear about homosexuality???

 

[Contarini]

no not in all religions there is no gay preists in my oriental orthodox church

You mean no openly gay priests. There’s no way you can possibly know the sexual behavior (or lack thereof) of every single OO priest, much less their sexual orientation/desires (you didn’t make it clear which of these you were talking about).

The Leviticus passage raises the question of why we don’t obey the other purity laws found in that same section of Leviticus. There are of course theological answers to this (the threefold division of the Law into moral, ceremonial, and judicial), but it’s not as simple a matter as you claim.

Edwin

 

[pipper]

I’ve read all the posts, since yesterday. I’m really so upset about this ordination; I am at a loss for words–doesn’t happen very often.

Anna

Anna I cant find your origianal post to respond to, but in it you mention orthodox teaching.

In my Episcopal days and in orthodox (small case O) Christianity in general orhodox is a precise term reffering to things like the Divine nature of Jesus, the Holy Trinity.

AFAIK orthodox does not refer politics or sexaulity at all.

Has orthodox been redefined in TEC?

 

[pipper]

Actually, they both have cost the church millions, but the subject of the thread was homosexuality not pedophilia.
I am also aware of the difference and it is not a random legal one.

The point of my post was that someone with thoughts of sin is not that same as someone who actually sins. Which makes me wonder if thoughts of a specific sin should bar a man from the priesthood.

No I do not think they should, temptaions in my understanding are temptations and everyone has them whatever thier sexuality is.

IMHO it is the sins that matter, and we all sin as well. Even the Holy Father confesses.

 

[Bran_Stark]

As a Protestant who while not belonging to it has a deep appreciation for the historic Anglican tradition, today I am ashamed. But I suppose it might have the good of for once and for all driving out any members of TEC with a few ounces of orthodoxy.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As a Protestant who while not belonging to it has a deep appreciation for the historic Anglican tradition, today I am ashamed. But I suppose it might have the good of for once and for all driving out any members of TEC with a few ounces of orthodoxy.

It will be interesting to see how you accomplish that!

Good luck & God Bless!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna I cant find your origianal post to respond to, but in it you mention orthodox teaching.

In my Episcopal days and in orthodox (small case O) Christianity in general orhodox is a precise term reffering to things like the Divine nature of Jesus, the Holy Trinity.

AFAIK orthodox does not refer politics or sexaulity at all.

Has orthodox been redefined in TEC?

pipper,

I have been visiting an Episcopal Church since January 2010, so I’m new and continue to study. I’m not really qualified to answer whether or not “orthodox” has been redefined in TEC.

I was not speaking of Orthodox Anglicanism, but only the historic orthodox Christian views evident in Scripture, which upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union.

Though I am in the Diocese of Texas, I appreciate this interesting writing by a Rev. G. F. Woodiff, in the Diocese of Mississippi.

Rediscovering Christian Orthodoxy, in Episcopal Anglicanism by Rev. George F. Woodliff, III. Link: standfirminfaith.com/media/Rediscovering_Christian_Orthodoxy.pdf

I’m still reading through documents from the Texas Diocese and will speak to my Rector about the ordination of Bishop Mary Douglas Glasspool. At this point, my Church has remained silent.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

None of us should be shocked by the actions of TEC. We should also be past the morning stage as well. TEC began to unravel in the 70’s with W.O. and into the 80’s and 90’s the liberal loosey-goosey theology as well as the liberation theology and politically-correct speak only got thicker. “Bishop” Robinson and Schiori only hammered the nail in the coffin. We shouldn’t generalize TEC as part of mainstream Anglicanism or continue to mourn the passing of a once-great denomination. Anglicanism is in realignment. I’m going to be fascinated to see what it looks like reloaded. I’m not thrilled with what I’m seeing, especially with the Global South wimping out to women’s ordination, but it’s always interesting to watch the drama and development. As for TEC, why are we surprised by any of this?

 

[Anna_Scott]

None of us should be shocked by the actions of TEC. We should also be past the morning stage as well. TEC began to unravel in the 70’s with W.O. and into the 80’s and 90’s the liberal loosey-goosey theology as well as the liberation theology and politically-correct speak only got thicker. “Bishop” Robinson and Schiori only hammered the nail in the coffin. We shouldn’t generalize TEC as part of mainstream Anglicanism or continue to mourn the passing of a once-great denomination. Anglicanism is in realignment. I’m going to be fascinated to see what it looks like reloaded. I’m not thrilled with what I’m seeing, especially with the Global South wimping out to women’s ordination, but it’s always interesting to watch the drama and development. As for TEC, why are we surprised by any of this?

gurneyhalleck1,

I was thinking about sending you a PM today. You made it to this thread anyway. You do call it like you see it. I appreciate you for your candor, and I can understand your lack of shock and mourning from your vantage point.

It’s different for me. I’ve been attending a very conservative Episcopal Church since January. The teachings are outstanding, and I am growing in this Church. They pulled me out of a religious crisis (as a good friend pointed out just today.) So, to see the TEC’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, proceed with this ordination is disturbing beyond words; and I am truly in mourning over this liberal move.

I’ve been checking documents from different Episcopal Diocese. What I think some people are missing is that not all Episcopal Diocese are in agreement with this liberal trend. The actions of a few are affecting the many. In fact, I think it is very likely that Katharine Jefferts Schori is siding with the few at the expense of the many.

You said, “We shouldn’t generalize TEC as part of mainstream Anglicanism.”

I say, we shouldn’t generalize TEC as not being part of mainstream Anglicanism.

The question for me is, do I jump ship-- or stay and fight for conservative beliefs.

In mourning,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

gurneyhalleck1,

I was thinking about sending you a PM today. You made it to this thread anyway. You do call it like you see it. I appreciate you for your candor, and I can understand your lack of shock and mourning from your vantage point.

It’s different for me. I’ve been attending a very conservative Episcopal Church since January. The teachings are outstanding, and I am growing in this Church. They pulled me out of a religious crisis (as a good friend pointed out just today.) So, to see the TEC’s Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, proceed with this ordination is disturbing beyond words; and I am truly in mourning over this liberal move.

I’ve been checking documents from different Episcopal Diocese. What I think some people are missing is that not all Episcopal Diocese are in agreement with this liberal trend. The actions of a few are affecting the many. In fact, I think it is very likely that Katharine Jefferts Schori is siding with the few at the expense of the many.

You said, “We shouldn’t generalize TEC as part of mainstream Anglicanism.”

I say, we shouldn’t generalize TEC as not being part of mainstream Anglicanism.

The question for me is, do I jump ship-- or stay and fight for conservative beliefs.

In mourning,
Anna

 

[theodre_the_cop]

You mean no openly gay priests. There’s no way you can possibly know the sexual behavior (or lack thereof) of every single OO priest, much less their sexual orientation/desires (you didn’t make it clear which of these you were talking about).

The Leviticus passage raises the question of why we don’t obey the other purity laws found in that same section of Leviticus. There are of course theological answers to this (the threefold division of the Law into moral, ceremonial, and judicial), but it’s not as simple a matter as you claim.

Edwin

i say they aren’t gay for a very good reason THEY ARE MARRIED and if anyone don’t apply the rules in this passage of leviticus then he is disgusting it is mainly talking about ((Incest and sleeping with animals)) and i am sure my church isn’t ok with it

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

who gave you these sacraments?

They were given to the Church, not to me.

From the Compendium of the Catechism:

The sacraments, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, are efficacious signs of grace perceptible to the senses .[Item 224]

I’d refer you to the Compendium or Catechism - each is available online - for the particulars of the origins and nature of the Seven Sacraments.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[larkin31]

You mean no openly gay priests. There’s no way you can possibly know the sexual behavior (or lack thereof) of every single OO priest, much less their sexual orientation/desires (you didn’t make it clear which of these you were talking about).

The Leviticus passage raises the question of why we don’t obey the other purity laws found in that same section of Leviticus. There are of course theological answers to this (the threefold division of the Law into moral, ceremonial, and judicial), but it’s not as simple a matter as you claim.

Edwin

It’s simple for people who want to see it as simple, or would rather not “see” it at all. Most Christian Churches have evolved their faith beyond many of the OT purity laws, but not the sexual rules. It is becoming more difficult for many Christians to justify through experience and cultural reinforcement, the rejection of homosexuality simply on the basis that it is about love for the same gender. Particularly when so many heterosexual couples now openly admit that they lovingly practice many of the sexual acts that used to be only associated with gay or libertine living. The “mask” is off heterosexual sex life, and the similarities between the sex lives of heteros and gays are making the shunning of gay life more difficult to justify.

 

[Nicea325]

Truly sad to what extent some Christian churches will go to. Ordaining GAY woman as bishops? How absurd! That is what happens when leadership has no backbone and cannot stick to orthodoxy,but rather cater to heterdoxy. That is not the Holy Spirit,but human spirit making such decisions.Letting the ‘minority’ state what it is and what is not ‘scriptural’ produces the end results: Ordaining gay folks!

I really feel bad for the Anglicans who are not for it at all.

 

[Justin_Mee]

It’s simple for people who want to see it as simple, or would rather not “see” it at all. Most Christian Churches have evolved their faith beyond many of the OT purity laws, but not the sexual rules. It is becoming more difficult for many Christians to justify through experience and cultural reinforcement, the rejection of homosexuality simply on the basis that it is about love for the same gender. Particularly when so many heterosexual couples now openly admit that they lovingly practice many of the sexual acts that used to be only associated with gay or libertine living. The “mask” is off heterosexual sex life, and the similarities between the sex lives of heteros and gays are making the shunning of gay life more difficult to justify.

I guess it all depends on who you want to believe, God or man. If you think that God adjusts His opinion to to suit current morals and lifestyles of mankind, then you have free will. Go with it and accept the consequences. I still believe He meant what He said. Just call me old fashion.

 

[larkin31]

I guess it all depends on who you want to believe, God or man. If you think that God adjusts His opinion to to suit current morals and lifestyles of mankind, then you have free will. Go with it and accept the consequences. I still believe He meant what He said. Just call me old fashion.

When Christians do not follow all of the rules of the OT, then it becomes clear that not all of the rules continue to apply over time, particularly if Jesus does not explicitly reinforce them in the gospels. I don’t recall that Jesus ever comments on homosexuality.

The only sexual morality that made the ten commandments was the prohibition on adultery. Some other OT strictures on sexuality are broken or permitted when in service of God (even incest). There is not much more of an argument against homosexuality except that “God says it is bad.” That is less and less persuasive as heterosexual practices share more and more of those same practices, but are excused because they are between husband and wife.

 

[Justin_Mee]

When Christians do not follow all of the rules of the OT, then it becomes clear that not all of the rules continue to apply over time, particularly if Jesus does not explicitly reinforce them in the gospels. I don’t recall that Jesus ever comments on homosexuality.

The only sexual morality that made the ten commandments was the prohibition on adultery. Some other OT strictures on sexuality are broken or permitted when in service of God (even incest). There is not much more of an argument against homosexuality except that “God says it is bad.” That is less and less persuasive as heterosexual practices share more and more of those same practices, but are excused because they are between husband and wife.

Larkin, you are ‘spinning’ the gospel and our holy tradition. Have you ever considered politics?