Homosexual Episcopalian "Bishop" is Blasted

[Crusader]

mercygate:

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.”

The only reason I am so direct on this matter is because too many people attempt to sell the Episcopalian Church (here in the USA) as sort of a “Catholic Lite” and that can be quite confusing to many.

Few Catholics would suggest Lutherans are Catholic (even though I believe many are closer to being Catholic than the Episcopalians) but many seem to have been sold the line that Episcopalians are somehow “Catholic” and the results might be most grave…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

>>>

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

Point taken - and TY for clarifying ​

Point 2 first: the CC might not - but there are plenty other scandals, of a different sort; hence my comment. I have no objection to gay clergy at all, as long as they are chaste. In some ways, I can see advantages in having gay clergy. But not unchaste clergy - gay or straight.

Point 1: the Anglican Church as a whole is not to be criticised for this - parts of ECUSA might be, but not the whole worldwide communion.

My own feeling is that parts of ECUSA should have got the whole question of principle sorted out first, with the rest of the Anglican Communion, instead of going ahead as in fact they did. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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…

Why do some Catholics find voting so distasteful ? The Church is not confined to the Pope, nor is he omniscient - so, debate is necessary. And voting. Jesus Christ learned from others - he “asked questions”. So how can His Body not do so ?​

This former Anglican would be very sorry to hear the Church of England - or indeed the Anglican Church at large - had created a SCDF. ##

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,

 

[mercygate]

## Why do some Catholics find voting so distasteful ? The Church is not confined to the Pope, nor is he omniscient - so, debate is necessary. And voting. Jesus Christ learned from others - he “asked questions”. So how can His Body not do so ?

This former Anglican would be very sorry to hear the Church of England - or indeed the Anglican Church at large - had created a SCDF. ##

The Catholic Church is governed by the voting of its bishops in council. But open voting by the laity at any given time would be catastrophic. Right now, for example, I understand that some 65% of the laity would vote FOR abortion. Thank God we’re not a “democracy.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Crusader:

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.

Yes, I am serious - entirely.​

Criticising others for the very faults we have ourselves does not sound too like Christ IMO.

So ISTM that we should be very careful indeed - it’s at least possible that we are worse than those we accuse. God has given us more than He has other Churches - so we must expect a severer judgement than they.

The trouble with the “political” approach to blemishes in another Church, is that the human beings involved can all too easily be forgotten - point-scoring and oneupmanship take over from insight, compassion, humility, self-knowledge and love. Which, for a Church, is almost the worst thing possible. ##

 

[JGC]

Diocese ‘sorry’ over gay bishop

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday October 20, 2004
The Guardian

guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1331459,00.html

 

[JGC]

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,

Windsor report for anyone interested

windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm

 

[JGC]

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,

Another point to consider is there may or may not be mileage in looking at Anglo Catholic priests orders but what about low church ministers who quite openly do not want to be called priests, do not believe in 7 sacraments, do not believe in any sort of real presence? There is the rather knotty question of Anglo Catholics may have a common sacramental belief with us (or as near as!) but given there predecessor Bishops held very protestant beliefs until the Oxford Movement then was Apostolic Succesion maintained? The Catholic Church believes not and many Anglo Catholic bishops have agreed and either were reconsecrated by or had an Old Catholic or Orthodox bishop consecrate them…

 

[Lisa_N]

JGC:

Diocese ‘sorry’ over gay bishop

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday October 20, 2004
The Guardian

guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1331459,00.html

You know I think those responsible for Robinson’s appointment are stunned and shocked at the response. At least in the US the Episcopal Church is seen as extremely liberal and may well be of the mind that this was a non-event.

I still maintain that Mr Robinson is showing a lot of hubris in thinking this appointment was worth possibly destroying his church.

Lisa N

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mercygate:

The Catholic Church is governed by the voting of its bishops in council. But open voting by the laity at any given time would be catastrophic. Right now, for example, I understand that some 65% of the laity would vote FOR abortion. Thank God we’re not a “democracy.”

I thank God that we European and American Christians do live in democracies - and I don’t understand the abhorrence some Catholics have for democracy. It is, after all, because the USA is a democracy, with freedom for personal expression, that hatred of democracy can be expressed without there being any unpleasant consequences, such as trial for sedition or treason; something which Catholic haters of democracy might like to bear in mind. In a theocracy, they might well have to do without a limb or two, if they belonged in, and criticised, some theocratic states as fiercely as they do their own.​

A Church that was a tyranny would be no democracy; it would not on that account be a Church in a healthy state. Nor is an autocracy any better - it’s not the NT model.

BTW - the whole Church is not in the USA So what is true of the Church in the USA, is not necessarily true of all the Church worldwide. So more widespread voting might be no bad thing. After all, the laity are as much indwelt by the Spirit of Christ as the clergy - we just have a different mission within the Church; so there is no place at all for any silliness about superiority or domination or clericalism or laicism. ##

 

[oat_soda]

why does everyone make such a big deal about a homosexual episcopalian bishop? they have women priestesses, no valid sacraments, no authority, open and active gay ministers, super liberal theology, and the worst founder of any religion - king henry the 8 who killed his wives and shut down all of the convents and monasteries to take their wealth. the only redeeming quality is that ritualist gave the episcopalians a facade of catholicism. but their church is rotten to the core.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oat soda:

why does everyone make such a big deal about a homosexual episcopalian bishop? they have women priestesses, no valid sacraments,

Baptism as practiced in the Church of England is as valid as is ours - that is why converts are no longer rebaptised.​

Masses which use invalid matter are invalid and, in fact, no Masses at all - so unless those have all been suppressed, we are not really in a position to criticise, IMO. ##

no authority, open and active gay ministers,

Like some Catholic bishops - including some no longer alive.​

super liberal theology, and the worst founder of any religion - king henry the 8 who killed his wives and shut down all of the convents and monasteries to take their wealth. the only redeeming quality is that ritualist gave the episcopalians a facade of catholicism. but their church is rotten to the core.

FWIW, the Popes of the last 40 years seem to had no trouble in finding much good in that Church. It’s there, if one has eyes for it - as is true of the CC also.​

They have the (much-maligned) Henry VIII - we have the (much-maligned) Alexander VI. Much more importantly, the Anglican claim is not that Henry VIII founded the C of E - and, he didn’t - but that the Cof E is in historical continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England: which theologically means that its founder is not Henry VIII, but Our Lord.

And it’s not clear that Henry VIII is any more objectionable than certain successors of the Apostles. There is a lot of holiness and learning and zeal in the Church of England (and so presumably in the whole Communion) - these are things not so easily explained by mentioning the frailties of the Anglican Communion or the failings of certain clergy. ##

 

[GKC]

G of G,

Thank you. Not for the first time, I think.

History is complicated.

GKC

traditional Anglo-Catholic (not Episcopalian).

 

[mean_owen]

oat soda:

why does everyone make such a big deal about a homosexual episcopalian bishop? they have women priestesses, no valid sacraments, no authority, open and active gay ministers, super liberal theology, and the worst founder of any religion - king henry the 8 who killed his wives and shut down all of the convents and monasteries to take their wealth. the only redeeming quality is that ritualist gave the episcopalians a facade of catholicism. but their church is rotten to the core.

On top of that, we don’t even have a good football team.
mean_owen, Episcopalian

 

[oat_soda]

Baptism as practiced in the Church of England is as valid as is ours - that is why converts are no longer rebaptised.

my bad, i meant to say no valid orders. marriage and baptism are certainly valid, but that’s it. all the others are void of any grace. go sox.

Anglican claim is not that Henry VIII founded the C of E - and, he didn’t - but that the Cof E is in historical continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England: which theologically means that its founder is not Henry VIII, but Our Lord.

episcopalians can say whatever they want. everyone knows henry the 8 first crowned himself king of the church of england.

 

[Contarini]

Well, oat soda, your opinion is duly noted, but you can’t persuade me I haven’t received grace.

At least we agree about the Red Sox, who are currently celebrating their glorious triumph . . . .

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

GKC:

G of G,

Thank you. Not for the first time, I think.

History is complicated.

GKC

traditional Anglo-Catholic (not Episcopalian).

One may simply be exhibiting symptoms of “philo-ecumenical crawl” - an occupational risk, if one is keen on Christian Unity and not keen on giving “the opposition” a good slamming.​

History is a mess. ##

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

In strict fairness, Lisa, the Episcopal Church as a whole didn’t think he was qualified to be a bishop. He was elected by the Diocese of New Hampshire, that election was affirmed by a majority of the House of Deputies and then again by the House of Bishops, and then after that, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA, and other bishops (quite a few) joined in consecrating him. A lot of folks in the Episcopal Church, USA are appalled by this, as well as (I think) 21 of the 38 independent provinces of the Anglican Communion, which have declared either impaired or broken communion with the ECUSA and with the Diocese of New Westminster (Anglican Church of Canada), which has started blessing homosexual unions. I was Episcopalian for about 5 years, but as a student of history, I found myself pulled across the Tiber. This is just such an example of why we need what Jesus gave us in the Petrine Covenant: someone who holds ultimate authority, who can draw a line in the sand, who can bind and loose, and who can be the final arbitrator. I hear some of these healthy, smooth-talking, ultra-suave Episcopalian prelates talking about inclusion and what was soooo very wrong with Saint Paul’s teachings and I think that our dear, sweet, beloved old Pope, with his slurred speech, and his crippled legs, and his shaking hands, holds Christ’s Church to a far steadier and infinitely more honest course. Long life to the Holy Father!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

##*** 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. ***

---

Their Holy Orders are not valid anyway, not because of any sinful action, but because they abandoned the ancient ordinal for bishops and wrote a new, radically Protestant one during the reign of Edward VI. Pope Leo XIII settled that in an encyclical or a bull, I can’t remember which. By the same token, none of our bishops can “invalidate” the Catholic episcopate by sinful action. They can shame it, disgrace it, embarrass it, but they cannot invalidate it, any more than the sins of the priest can invalidate a poperly confected Eucharist.

---

 

[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.

In strict fairness, Lisa, the Episcopal Church as a whole didn’t think he was qualified to be a bishop. He was elected by the Diocese of New Hampshire, that election was affirmed by a majority of the House of Deputies and then again by the House of Bishops, and then after that, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA, and other bishops (quite a few) joined in consecrating him.
…
I hear some of these healthy, smooth-talking, ultra-suave Episcopalian prelates talking about inclusion and what was soooo very wrong with Saint Paul’s teachings and I think that our dear, sweet, beloved old Pope, with his slurred speech, and his crippled legs, and his shaking hands, holds Christ’s Church to a far steadier and infinitely more honest course. Long life to the Holy Father!

Yes this world needs some real leadership and the Pope may be physically weak but his inner strength and conviction are so inspiring.

Thank you for the response on the election of Mr Robinson. I still do not understand why this man thinks his personal ambitions are more important than his church. He is destroying it with his ambition and ego.

Lisa N