Homosexual Episcopalian "Bishop" is Blasted

[Crusader]

“The Anglican hierarchy has urged US church leaders to apologise for consecrating a gay bishop and called for a moratorium on same-sex marriages…”

abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1222565.htm

It’s about time…

 

[Exporter]

Yes, that is correct. I heard it last night via radio. ABC I think.

 

[Lisa_N]

You have to wonder why the Episcopalian church thought Mr Robinson was qualified to be a Bishop. If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover, that doesn’t speak well of his ethics, loyalty and moral standards. I would hope that the post of Bishop would be reserved for those who had lived exemplary lives, rather than those flouting biblical teachings, dumping a wife and mother of his children, living openly with a homosexual lover and expecting everyone to embrace this “lifestyle.” How does his conduct inspire him to be respected as a man of God?

Lisa N

 

[Crusader]

Lisa N:

You have to wonder why the Episcopalian church thought Mr Robinson was qualified to be a Bishop. If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover, that doesn’t speak well of his ethics, loyalty and moral standards. I would hope that the post of Bishop would be reserved for those who had lived exemplary lives, rather than those flouting biblical teachings, dumping a wife and mother of his children, living openly with a homosexual lover and expecting everyone to embrace this “lifestyle.” How does his conduct inspire him to be respected as a man of God?

Lisa N

The Episcopalian Church is dying while other parts of the Anglican Communion are hanging in there. Actions like allowing a divorced, practicing homosexual to become a “bishop” are what’s causing that decline.

Hopefully these current actions will not only help the Episcopalians, hopefully they will also put a little pressure on the militant homosexuals who claim to be Catholics…

 

[dfb1105]

Maybe we can get some of these people to “Cross the Tiber”

 

[Apologia100]

dfb1105:

Maybe we can get some of these people to “Cross the Tiber”

I believe this is quietly already happening, although many of them are “Crossing the Thames” and joining more conservative Anglican congregations.

 

[Hesychios]

The way the ECUSA is structured, the individual dioceses will pay little to no attention to this and elect whomever thay please as future Episcopal candidates. Many of their best people have been leaving for years, and this has contributed to the drift they have been experiencing.

Once the church had over 7 million members, that when the population of the USA was half what it is today. They have contributed a significant number of priests to Orthodoxy and a few to the Catholic church in the last twenty years, so those voices are removed from influencing them.

Today, the ECUSA is less than 2.5 million, (many are divorced and remarried Catholics - others are alienated gay Catholics) and I’ll bet less than 20,000 find their way to Rome (I know that’s a guess, but that’s what I think).

Sadly, the most conservative parishes in the Episcopal church tend to be very Evangelical and Bible-based. The “high-church” and “Anglo-Catholic” types seem to be all over the board on this issue. It appears that there is no direct corelation between a fondness for profound Catholic liturgy and conservative moral values.

So while I am sure some additional individuals will look to Rome for better spiritual guidance I could see a greater number going the other way.

The Protestant Episcopal church will survive all of this as an institution because of it’s assets, even if in a reduced form. It will be notorious and vocal, and it will be a problem for us for generations to come, sending an alternative message out into the world.

This whole thing is bad news.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Lisa N:

You have to wonder why the Episcopalian church thought Mr Robinson was qualified to be a Bishop. If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover, that doesn’t speak well of his ethics, loyalty and moral standards. I would hope that the post of Bishop would be reserved for those who had lived exemplary lives, rather than those flouting biblical teachings, dumping a wife and mother of his children, living openly with a homosexual lover and expecting everyone to embrace this “lifestyle.” How does his conduct inspire him to be respected as a man of God?

Lisa N

Maybe Catholics would be wise not to throw stones. If certain of our own bishops don’t invalidate the Catholic episcopate, certainly one Anglican bishop can’t invalidate the Anglican episcopate.​

If we find reasons for criticism of them - let us pray for them. And hope that they will pray for us ##

 

[foolintherain]

Lisa N:

You have to wonder why the Episcopalian church thought Mr Robinson was qualified to be a Bishop. If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover, that doesn’t speak well of his ethics, loyalty and moral standards. I would hope that the post of Bishop would be reserved for those who had lived exemplary lives, rather than those flouting biblical teachings, dumping a wife and mother of his children, living openly with a homosexual lover and expecting everyone to embrace this “lifestyle.” How does his conduct inspire him to be respected as a man of God?

Lisa N

I’ll say that I did not know these thing about their bishop Robinson. That he had been married and divorced that he lives with a homosexual lover. But by the letter of the law homosexuality in itself is not a sin, right? Rather homosexual acts are a sin because they violate natural law as it pertains to sex and the procreation of life. This is why homosexuals are called to a life of chastity, correct? In this sense homosexual acts violate the same moral ethic that heterosexual acts with contraceptives do, do they not?

So wouldn’t it follow that homosexuals as long as they are chaste do not violate any moral and as such are fit to lead a congregation?

Like I said this does not apply to bishop Robinson case but in general. And as a side note: The very idea that some faiths allow their members to “vote” on what they believe really strikes me as absurd.

 

[catsrus]

The Anglican hierachy is attempting to lock the barn door after the horse is waaayyy down the road!

 

[Contarini]

: If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover,:

That’s not quite accurate. Robinson had struggled with homosexual inclinations in college, and then decided to get married, telling his wife about his leanings. All fair and honorable so far. Then years later, after they had two daughters (IIRC), he came to the conclusion that God was calling him to acknowledge his “identity” as a gay person. From what I’ve heard, this did not mean that he had his eye on some particular guy whom he wanted to have an affair with. It simply meant that he no longer felt that he could try to live as a “heterosexual,” and that he believed that he would be pleasing God more by separating from his wife and living openly as a homosexual person. His wife agreed to this arrangement, and they actually had a ceremony in which they gave each other back their wedding rings and released each other from their vows. He did not meet his present partner till about ten years later, I believe. He may not have been celibate all that time, but there’s no evidence that he “left his wife for a gay lover.”

This is a fairly minor point, but it’s important inasmuch as the issue really isn’t about Robinson’s personal character. By the standards commonly accepted in the more liberal circles of our society, he did the honorable thing. He admitted “who he was” instead of hiding behind a conventional marriage.

The problem is with the sick, perverted notion of sexuality and human identity rampant in our society, which led Robinson (who appears otherwise to be a thoroughly decent person) actually to believe that he was pleasing God by breaking his marriage vows. The Church needs to take its stand on the fact that homosexuality or any other sexual inclination does not constitute a person’s identity, so that the language of “acknowledging my identity” is nonsense language and meaningless to Christians. We also need to stand on the fact that marriage is a calling from God and not an expression of our “sexual identity” or a mechanism for personal fulfillment.

And yes, I know that the Catholic Church is taking its stand on these points. God bless you all!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Crusader]

## Maybe Catholics would be wise not to throw stones. If certain of our own bishops don’t invalidate the Catholic episcopate, **certainly one Anglican bishop can’t invalidate the Anglican episcopate. **

If we find reasons for criticism of them - let us pray for them. And hope that they will pray for us ##

There really isn’t anything to invalidate. The Anglicans do not have valid orders…

 

[Lisa_N]

: If he promised before God to love and honor his wife, then tossed her over for a homosexual lover,:

The problem is with the sick, perverted notion of sexuality and human identity rampant in our society, which led Robinson (who appears otherwise to be a thoroughly decent person) actually to believe that he was pleasing God by breaking his marriage vows. The Church needs to take its stand on the fact that homosexuality or any other sexual inclination does not constitute a person’s identity, so that the language of “acknowledging my identity” is nonsense language and meaningless to Christians. We also need to stand on the fact that marriage is a calling from God and not an expression of our “sexual identity” or a mechanism for personal fulfillment.

And yes, I know that the Catholic Church is taking its stand on these points. God bless you all!

In Christ,

Edwin

Thank you for the detailed post about Mr Robinson. I had not heard any of the information about the way he ‘came out’ but again, regardless of whether he confessesd his inclinations to his wife (a decent thing to do certainly) I still believe he made promises before God when they were married. Apparently later he decided that his feelings and “identify” were more important than that promise. I totally agree with your premise regarding Mr Robinson’s attitude toward making his sexuality his identity. Our society has created a desire to worship a God of self expression and fulfillment. Too bad when this trickles down to the church.

We are all mortal and all sinners but my point was that no one has the right to be a bishop. That seems like such a high honor it should be reserved for those who lived exemplary lives. Has Mr Robinson? I don’t know but I would definitely have some concerns about the REAL reason he was consecrated. Was it because he was such an incredible man of God or was it to make a statement? To push an agenda? To be politically correct?

My other question about Mr. Robinson is did he think HIS elevation to bishop was more important than the church itself? IOW when does one man’s personal ambitions become more important than the body of Christ? The schism this is causing is heartbreaking to Episcopalians and I think there will be a great deal of fallout in the future.

Lisa N

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Crusader:

There really isn’t anything to invalidate. The Anglicans do not have valid orders…

Sorry ​

I wasn’t referring to their sacramental status, but to the mode of reasoning that seems to consist in our making remarks about other Churches without asking whether we are in a position to criticise them. Given the trickle of rather nasty scandals among Catholic clergy even before the annus horribilis of 2002, ISTM that the less said about sexual failings among others by Catholics, the better.

“One Anglican bishop cannot be used as an argument that Anglican bishops as a body are any worse than bishops in the Catholic Church.”

There - I think that should make the point, without being misunderstood

Why don’t we non-Anglicans talk about the virtues of Anglican bishops instead ? ##

 

[Lisa_N]

## Sorry

“One Anglican bishop cannot be used as an argument that Anglican bishops as a body are any worse than bishops in the Catholic Church.”

There - I think that should make the point, without being misunderstood

Why don’t we non-Anglicans talk about the virtues of Anglican bishops instead ? ##

I don’t think there is so much criticism of Mr Robinson as there is criticism of the Anglican/Episcopal church for consecrating him as Bishop. That he was openly homosexual, living with another man in an obviously sexual relationship (I don’t think they are just roomies) would seem to be in violation of scriptural teachings. To then elevate this man who is “living in sin” both figuratively and literally, to such a high position does IMO seem to be rather a misguided effort to shove an agenda in the faces of many unwilling Anglicans.

There are Catholic priests who are sinners and there are Anglican priests who are sinners. But regardless, I don’t think that the Catholic church would knowingly and openly make a practicing homosexual a bishop. So I see this thread as being one focused on church policy, not the errant individual members of individual churches.

Lisa N

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Like I said this does not apply to bishop Robinson case but in general. And as a side note: The very idea that some faiths allow their members to “vote” on what they believe really strikes me as absurd.

Actually bishops vote on decrees in Ecumenical Councils. I think there were even some laity and religious who had the vote in early ones (post-Chalcedon, I think). I hate to mention it without some backing, but the source seemed credible, though I can’t recall it. I’ll try to find it…

I speak as an Anglo-Catholic priest who crossed the Thames from the Evanglical Protestant side. I affirm unreservedly the Lambeth Conferences (e.g., sex is valid only within monogamous, heterosexual marriage), I can tell you I am ecstatic about the new Windsor Report. We are on the verge of creating an analogue to the CDF (Holy Office). Our penchant for linguistic subtlety and English reserve is being stretched a bit, and I sense there will be some serious consequences coming for ECUSA innovators (apostates and heretics) who do not repent. I’m happy about that. I am also in a Diocese which is affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network, which affirms the authority of the primates and collegium episcopi (college of bishops) and their instruments of authority.

I know what Leo XIII said about Anglican Orders. However, there are some serious questions about the veracity of his indictment. For instance, the Orthodox are “guilty” of the same inadequacies that got us nullified. The jury is still out on Apostolicae Curiae, and the jury includes some serious Catholic and Orthodox theologians (for the record, Louis Duchesne dissented from the commission appointed by Leo).

That said, the comments about the decline of ECUSA are spot on. We have allowed rebellion to reign for too long. But I think we’re about to put a stop to it. If not, I’m crossing the Tiber (or Bosphorus; I haven’t decided yet)

Cheers,

 

[GKC]

Greetings, Q.V.+,

I’m an AC from the Continuing Anglican world.

You:" I know what Leo XIII said about Anglican Orders. However, there are some serious questions about the veracity of his indictment. For instance, the Orthodox are “guilty” of the same inadequacies that got us nullified. The jury is still out on Apostolicae Curiae, and the jury includes some serious Catholic and Orthodox theologians (for the record, Louis Duchesne dissented from the commission appointed by Leo)."

I got my doubts that the Orthodox would get hit with the same combo of defect of intention/defect of form that *Apostolicae Curae * hit us with (defect of intention is about all that gets seriously talked about today), with respect to the development of and use of the Edwardine Ordinal. That being said, I’m of your opinion. I think the decision was an erroneous, though an understandable one, given the conditions and personalities of the time.

Along with Duchesne, de Augustinis was also dissented from the final decision. Gaspari and Scannell were for a doubtful validity. The 3 English Commissioners, and Fr. de Llaveneras were for a judgement of invalid. This was according to the memory of (by then Cardinal ) Merry del Val, in 1910. He said something slightly different in 1930.

The story of *Apostolicae Curae * is a sad and complicated one. To get a good account of the RC case, there’s Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. The best statement against AC, and for the validity of Anglican orders is probably Fr. J.J. Hughes two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. Fr. Hughes is a RC priest, former Anglican priest, and the first such known to have been reordained sub conditione.

GKC

 

[Crusader]

## Sorry

I wasn’t referring to their sacramental status, but to the mode of reasoning that seems to consist in our making remarks about other Churches without asking whether we are in a position to criticise them. Given the trickle of rather nasty scandals among Catholic clergy even before the annus horribilis of 2002, ISTM **that the less said about sexual failings among others by Catholics, the better. **

“One Anglican bishop cannot be used as an argument that Anglican bishops as a body are any worse than bishops in the Catholic Church.”

There - I think that should make the point, without being misunderstood

Why don’t we non-Anglicans talk about the virtues of Anglican bishops instead ? ##

Are you serious? I hope this rebuke of robinson places at least a tiny bit of pressure on the homosexual agenda within the Catholic Church.

 

[Crusader]

QuicumqueVult:

Like I said this does not apply to bishop Robinson case but in general. And as a side note: The very idea that some faiths allow their members to “vote” on what they believe really strikes me as absurd.

Actually bishops vote on decrees in Ecumenical Councils. I think there were even some laity and religious who had the vote in early ones (post-Chalcedon, I think). I hate to mention it without some backing, but the source seemed credible, though I can’t recall it. I’ll try to find it…

I speak as an Anglo-Catholic priest who crossed the Thames from the Evanglical Protestant side. I affirm unreservedly the Lambeth Conferences (e.g., sex is valid only within monogamous, heterosexual marriage), I can tell you I am ecstatic about the new Windsor Report. We are on the verge of creating an analogue to the CDF (Holy Office). Our penchant for linguistic subtlety and English reserve is being stretched a bit, and I sense there will be some serious consequences coming for ECUSA innovators (apostates and heretics) who do not repent. I’m happy about that. I am also in a Diocese which is affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network, which affirms the authority of the primates and collegium episcopi (college of bishops) and their instruments of authority.

I know what Leo XIII said about Anglican Orders. However, there are some serious questions about the veracity of his indictment. For instance, the Orthodox are “guilty” of the same inadequacies that got us nullified. The jury is still out on Apostolicae Curiae, and the jury includes some serious Catholic and Orthodox theologians (for the record, Louis Duchesne dissented from the commission appointed by Leo).

That said, the comments about the decline of ECUSA are spot on. We have allowed rebellion to reign for too long. But I think we’re about to put a stop to it. If not, I’m crossing the Tiber (or Bosphorus; I haven’t decided yet)

Cheers,

Keep in mind that all of Anglicanism is Protestant. To suggest that any Anglicans are part of the Catholic Church is to live in denial.

While there is an “Anglican-use” liturgy within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, there are no Anglo-Catholics, merely Anglo-Protestants.

 

[mercygate]

Crusader:

Keep in mind that all of Anglicanism is Protestant. To suggest that any Anglicans are part of the Catholic Church is to live in denial.

While there is an “Anglican-use” liturgy within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, there are no Anglo-Catholics, merely Anglo-Protestants.

OK, Crusader. I give you points for technical correctness. But you ignore the continuum of belief which makes YOU closer in doctrine to our Anglo-Catholic brethren than to half the people in your congregation. There are a lot of “protestants” sitting in Catholic pews and a lot of “catholics” standing at the threshold of the Church. I speak as a Convert from the Episcopal Church. Without the spectrum of belief and practice in the Episcopal Church, I doubt that I could have made the journey from anti-Catholic to Catholic-tolerant, to practicing ‘catholic’ to Catholic.

A few months ago, a bishop asked me how long I had been Catholic. I was about to tell him that I converted in 2001 – but the lightbulb went on in my head, and I gave him the “true” answer: “I was Catholic in all but name: doctrine, discipline, practice for 25 years. I was received into the Church (yes: THE Church) in 2001.”