Homosexual Episcopalian "Bishop" is Blasted

[StJeanneDArc]

An article in the today’s Wall Street Journal discussed this very issue. The author gave a brief synopsis of the sequence of events. The document issued by the Lambeth Commission is called the Windsor Report 2004. It criticizes the individuals on both sides of this issue and urges unity in the Anglican Communion. The “split the baby” compromise is that the U.S. Episcopal Church is supposed to apologize for consecrating the homosexual bishop and promise never to do it again and the conservative Anglican communities (mostly located in Africa and Latin American) are supposed to stop interfering in the American affairs. This whole affair leaves me agog for several reasons:

1. The U.S. church went ahead and consecrated Robinson even after being urged by the Anglican Communion to wait, and now they’re upset at this act of disobedience. What exactly is the big deal? That entire denomination was founded on an act of disobedience.
2. The Lambeth Commission seems to value unity above truth and morality. They’re willing to let the consecration of Robinson stand as long as the U.S. church doesn’t leave the fold. What principled reason could they have for refusing the consecration of more homosexual bishops?
3. Robinson and his supporters seem to believe that an active homosexual lifestyle is a good and wholesome one approved by God. Any of you posters out there who keep pointing to the sinfulness of Catholic prelates have a more stunning example of the open promotion of a sinful lifestyle?

 

[mercygate]

StJeanneDArc:

The Lambeth Commission seems to value unity above truth and morality.

Anglican SOP

1. Any of you posters out there who keep pointing to the sinfulness of Catholic prelates have a more stunning example of the open promotion of a sinful lifestyle?

At least on this side of the Tiber, nobody gets away with saying that this is a lifestyle ordained by God.

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

dfb1105:

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

DF,

Now why would anyone want to add the worlds supply of gays to a church already deeply troubled with sexual issues?

Of course they could always become Lutheran!

Naw. On second thought, perhaps they ought to remain in the Episcopal Church and let those sods sort things out!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

The Bull “Apostolicae Curae”​

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.

Your last sentence makes my point - TY . I was not talking about sacramental theology, but about morals. So invalidate was not the best word. Sorry for the confusion: I thought the meaning would be obvious ​

FWIW, some Anglicans certainly have valid orders - others, may have. In no case need lack of orders hinder the Holy Spirit, Who is “not tied to the Sacraments”. ##

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

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.

Absolutely!

What’s more, the Holy Roman Catholic Church - The Chair of St. Peter - would never countenance gays, pedophiles, and other practitioners of abhorrent sexual practices to become members of it’s clergy!

And if one were to somehow sneak by the heavily guarded doors to the priesthood, he would immediately be anathematized and cast into hell!

There has NEVER been a sexual problem among the Catholic clergy; and there never will be!

Good grief, what sick minds won’t conjure up next…

 

[GKC]

“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”

According to * Apostolicae Curae*, the problem with the Edwardine Ordinal lay in 2 interrelated areas. a supposed defect of form and a a supposed defect of intention. In fact, the form is not particularly Protestant at all. One can cite half a dozen ordination rites which Rome does recognise as vallid, which have essentially the same “defect”. The key issue was defect of intent; that the CoE devised another rite at all, which didn’t specifically mention the celebration of Mass, in the times and circumstances prevailing, was considered as proof that there was a defect of intent; to actually ordain to the sacerdotal priesthood. Had the CoE continued to use the Pontifical, things might have been even more interesting.

There is an interesting discussion/comparision of the Anglican Ordinal, the 16th century Roman Pontifical, and the current Pontifical, at ACCIPE POTESTATEM, here:

angelfire.com/nj/malleus/article2.html

This is the best site I know of for anyone interested in the sad subject of AC, run by a RC layman, the best amateur authority on the subject I have ever been confused by.

GKC

 

[tcay584]

## 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.

No offense, but while we do live in political democracy, the Church has always and shall always remain under the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ through the Pope. We are not, and never have been, a democracy in that sense. Personally, in view of the ways of the world these days, I’m quite glad for it. A Catholic can disagree all he or she wants on issues like the ordination of practicing homosexuals, gay marriage, cloning, etc. However, those are the rules that God has given us through the Church. We are always free to reject the Church if we disagree, just as we are free to reject God if we so choose. I feel most sorry for those who sit on the fence…something about being spat out at the end.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tcay584:

## 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.

No offense, but while we do live in political democracy, the Church has always and shall always remain under the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ through the Pope.

That’s one possible model of being the Church - and it was not that known to the Fathers: for them, the Church was not ruled by Rome, but by patriarchs and bishops. It was not as centralised as in that first model.​

There is nothing Catholic about rejecting personal liberty
or political liberty - Catholicism is not a political programme for depriving people of freedom, but a way of helping them love and serve God.

And the authority of Christ is no more prejuduced by democracy, than it is by Papal absolutism - the point being, that the world outside the Church is not the only source of ideas which weaken the Kingship of Christ.

And I still don’t understand this distaste for democracy - if the Church in the USA had grown up in a state that was militantly opposed to Catholicism, it would not be the Church it is today; it might very well be a very small body, had the democracy which has given it liberty to spread been absent. Churches have to deal with the conditions in which they actually live - and sometimes this means being in a democracy Theocracies are all very well; but how many critics of USA democracy would prefer to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia ? ##

We are not, and never have been, a democracy in that sense. Personally, in view of the ways of the world these days, I’m quite glad for it. A Catholic can disagree all he or she wants on issues like the ordination of practicing homosexuals, gay marriage, cloning, etc. However, those are the rules that God has given us through the Church. We are always free to reject the Church if we disagree, just as we are free to reject God if we so choose. I feel most sorry for those who sit on the fence…something about being spat out at the end.

There’s nothing lukewarm about preferring liberty to tyranny or to authoritarianism. ​

And Christianity is not based on rules - not ultimately. It’s based on something that requires far more: it’s based on love - God’s Love for us, and our return of love to God.

There seems to be a strange idea going around that unless one is opposed to personal freedom, one cannot be a real Catholic. But, to live in freedom, requires far more inner strength than legalism or libertinism: so those two, are not the only ways of living possible - still less is legalism preferable to libertinism. They are both sub-Christian, in differing ways; so the answer seems to be, as in everything else, love in all things. Because, if we really did love, we could do as we wished - because we always do the will of God; it would be second nature to us.

When St. Augustine said, “Love, and do what you will”, he was doing no more than summarise the two great commandments. If we did love, there would be no tension between law and liberty - we would have internalised both of them. ##

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My dear oatsoda:

You said

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

You are misinformed.

And, in fact, when Henry took the throne on June 24,1509, he was CROWNED (they’re only crowned ONCE, you know) as the Catholic King Henry VIII. So when did Henry “crown himself king of the church of england?”

What “everybody knows” isn’t necessarily gospel truth.
And, to refresh your memory, he didn’t “kill all his wives.”
Wife 1–Catherine of Aragon. He divorced her in 1533; she died in January 1536 of natural causes. Their daughter Mary (later Mary I) was born in 1518.
Wife 2–Anne Boleyn. He divorced her in 1536 and she was beheaded, by a skilled swordsman–as a legal “traitor to the crown” (though the charge was trumped up) she COULD have been burnt at the stake. Beheading was actually considered a “more merciful” death. Their daughter Elizabeth (later Elizabeth I) was born in 1533.
Wife 3–Jane Seymour. She died of puerperal (childbed) fever in 1537. Their son Edward (later Edward V) was born 10 days before her death.
Wife 4–Anne of Cleves (the Duchy of Cleves was a Protestant German state). the “Flanders Mare”–Henry married her as a political move, the marriage was never consummated, and Anne agreed to annulling the marriage and being known as “the King’s Good Sister”. She survived Henry.
Wife 5–Katherine Howard, a cousin to Anne Boleyn. Katherine was both very young and very badly brought up under her stepgrandmother’s tutelage. She was divorced by Henry (with sadness) because she was not a virgin bride, was being blackmailed by former servants, and was at least “foolish” in dallying with one of the King’s intimates, Thomas Culpepper. She was beheaded.
Wife 6–Katherine Parr, twice widowed, rich, and a patronness of the “new learning”–i.e., episcopal faith. Katherine survived Henry’s death in 1547 and married Tom Seymour, Lord High Admiral (brother of the deceased Jane), dying a year later in childbirth.

Henry, during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, led a relatively “chaste” life, with few known mistresses. Bessie Blount had his son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of York, but young Henry (born the same year as the legitimate daughter Mary) was tubercular (as Edward was later thought to be) and died before he was 20.
Anne Boleyn’s sister Mary was also the King’s mistress --which is the reason that when petititioning the Pope (Clement) to marry Anne, should Henry’s marriage to Catherine not prove valid, Henry had to petition for permission to marry within the bounds of consanguinuity, as he had had “carnal relations” with the sister of the woman he proposed to marry, which was forbidden in canon law. Mary Boleyn had a son whom some later claimed was an illegitimate child of Henry’s, but that is considered unlikely by historians, as Henry had already acknowledged his son by Bessie Blount and would have also acknowledged any others, considering his deep desire for a SON to succeed him.

That son reigned for a grand total of 6 years, dying before his 17th birthday. And we know which child of Henry was most famous, right?

Here endeth the history lesson for this posting!

 

[HagiaSophia]

mean_owen:

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

One of the better observations in this thread.

 

[GKC]

Tantum Ergo,

Well done. I considered addressing the “crowned himself king of the CoE,” with reference to the Parlimentary acts between 1532 and 1534, culminating in the Supreme Head Act, but decided it wasn’t worth it. Maybe it’s just rhetoric.

Good summary. I’m fond of getting deep into history myself. The subject of impediments/annulments and dispensations, as the process worked in the real-politicks of the 16th century, is particularly fascinating. Or the parallel careers of the Duke of Richmond and Somerset (was York, formerly his father’s title, added?) and Mary, until Fitzroy’s death.

Thanks again for an enjoyable post.

GKC

traditional Anglican

 

[oat_soda]

And, in fact, when Henry took the throne on June 24,1509, he was CROWNED (they’re only crowned ONCE, you know) as the Catholic King Henry VIII. So when did Henry “crown himself king of the church of england?”

but king henry gave himself supreme authority over the church of england independent of pope. this is why st. thomas more and st. john fisher were martyred. you know this. it seems to justify anglicanism you have to go to extreme lengths to bury a obvious act of disobedience, sin, and pride.

At the beginning of 1531 the Convocation of Canterbury (local synod) were informed that they could purchase a pardon for the praemunire (error) they had incurred by presenting the king with the enormous sum of 100,000 pounds. Further, they were bidden to recognize the king (Henry 8th) as “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England.”

what is the difference?? you know excatly what i meant by saying “crowned himself head of the church of england”. newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm

And, to refresh your memory, he didn’t “kill all his wives.”

i never said he killed all of his wives but killed his wives. how can you deny this historical fact!!

“Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, his second and fifth wives, perished on the scaffold, but their whilom lord only paraded his indifference regarding the fate to which he had condemned them.”

great guy. you should be proud this murderer founded you religion.

finally, if you were not protestant but merely schismatic or the “third branch” of christianity, you would hold to those things which king henry wanted.

In 1539 the Statute of the Six Articles enforced, under the severest penalties, such doctrines as transubstantiation, communion under one species , auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy. Under this act offenders were sent to the stake for their Protestantism just as ruthlessly as the aged Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was attainted by Parliament and eventually beheaded, simply because Henry was irritated by the denunciations of her sonCardinal Pole.

i don’t see any doctrine of transubstantiation or celibacy of the clergy in any anglican splinter group or the episcopal church. anglicans are being totally inconsistent with what they believe and ultimately have made comprimises with protestantism because being catholic is too hard, as it was for henry the 8th to remain faithful to his wife.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Out of all the anger and sadness over the Robinson election/consecration, I did hear one thing that was a bit of a hoot. It goes like this:

“V. Gene Robinson’s election and consecration as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, while living with his homosexual partner, is an affront not only to Sacred Orders, but to the Christian marriage as well! The founder of Anglicanism, King Henry VIII, is turning in his grave at this insult to the sanctity of wedded life…as is his wife, Queen Katherine of Aragon…and his wife, Queen Anne Boylen…and his wife Queen Jane Seymour…and his wife Queen Anna von Cleves…and his wife Queen Katherine Howard…and his wife Queen Katherine Parr.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Sea_Knight]

JKirkLVNV:

Out of all the anger and sadness over the Robinson election/consecration, I did hear one thing that was a bit of a hoot. It goes like this:

“V. Gene Robinson’s election and consecration as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, while living with his homosexual partner, is an affront not only to Sacred Orders, but to the Christian marriage as well! The founder of Anglicanism, King Henry VIII, is turning in his grave at this insult to the sanctity of wedded life…as is his wife, Queen Katherine of Aragon…and his wife, Queen Anne Boylen…and his wife Queen Jane Seymour…and his wife Queen Anna von Cleves…and his wife Queen Katherine Howard…and his wife Queen Katherine Parr.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget why Episcopalians aren’t any good at playing chess…

They can’t tell the difference between a Bishop and a Queen!

 

[HagiaSophia]

Tantum ergo:

which is the reason that when petititioning the Pope (Clement) to marry Anne, should Henry’s marriage to Catherine not prove valid, Henry had to petition for permission to marry within the bounds of consanguinuity, as he had had “carnal relations” with the sister of the woman he proposed to marry, which was forbidden in canon law.

My recollection differs from yours decidedly on this point; Catalina had been betrothd to Arthur Harry’s brother who died before the marriage took place. Thus when Henry went to leave Catalina for Anne, he appealed on the grounds that his marriage was cursed by the consanguinity issue as he had wed his brother’s widow and so wanted an annulment from Catalina. (After 18 pregnances no less).

Clement, no fool, said “nay”.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Tantum ergo:

And, to refresh your memory, he didn’t “kill all his wives.”

Wife 2–Anne Boleyn. He divorced her in 1536 and she was beheaded, by a skilled swordsman–as a legal “traitor to the crown” (though the charge was trumped up) she COULD have been burnt at the stake. Beheading was actually considered a “more merciful” death.

Actually as wife of the sovereign the sword was the only consideration. No burning at the stake for the Queen of England.
Tantum ergo:

Wife 4–Anne of Cleves (the Duchy of Cleves was a Protestant German state). the “Flanders Mare”–Henry married her as a political move, the marriage was never consummated, and Anne agreed to annulling the marriage and being known as “the King’s Good Sister”. She survived Henry.

Only because she could play a good game of cards and played the king for her freedom. Anne won the card game and Holbein was just about banned from Henry’s sight as it was he who painted a portrait of her before Henry made the proposal and when Anne arrived, Henry nearly fainted dead away. The Holbein portrait and the real Ann were quite two different visuals
Tantum ergo:

Wife 5–Katherine Howard, a cousin to Anne Boleyn. and was at least “foolish” in dallying with one of the King’s intimates, Thomas Culpepper. She was beheaded.

And chased through the halls by the royal guards screaming for help from Henry who kept his door locked and wouldn’t answer. Her ghost it is said is seen running down the halls to this very day.
Tantum ergo:

Wife 6–Katherine Parr, twice widowed, rich, and a patronness of the “new learning”–i.e., episcopal faith. Katherine survived Henry’s death in 1547 and married Tom Seymour, Lord High Admiral (brother of the deceased Jane), dying a year later in childbirth.

Twice she escaped the sword by finding out about the plots to get her and turning to the King for help. He thought better of the gossip he had heard and spared her. Mercifully he died and she could sleep nights.

 

[GKC]

HagiaSophia:

My recollection differs from yours decidedly on this point; Catalina had been betrothd to Arthur Harry’s brother who died before the marriage took place. Thus when Henry went to leave Catalina for Anne, he appealed on the grounds that his marriage was cursed by the consanguinity issue as he had wed his brother’s widow and so wanted an annulment from Catalina. (After 18 pregnances no less).

Clement, no fool, said “nay”.

Ah. Thread gets interesting.

No, Catherine and Arthur were well and truly wed, in 1501, before the flimsy Tudor genes took Arthur away early in 1502. Many things that can be discussed then happened (if it were desired), and eventually Henry was substituted for his brother, to keep the Spanish/English alliance intact, so far as that went, and to allow Henry VII to keep nagging Ferdinand and Isabella for the rest of Catherine’s dowry. To achieve this required a dispensation of the impediment established by the previous marriage between Arthur and Catherine. At the time, this was completely routine, it was how marriages of state were handled, while still protecting the sacrament. Julius II granted the annulment, in a poorly worded document that caused a lot of talk years later.

The impediment that Henry and Catherine faced was one of affinity, not consanquinity, which travels in the bloodlines. Affinity arises as an impediment, ex coitu, normally, but not necessarily in the course of consumating a marriage. This establishes an impediment between the couple involved and the relatives of their respective families But it arises from the physical act itself, not the marriage act. And thus, having dallied with Mary Bolyen, Henry had established a diriment impediment of affinity in the first degree with Anne, and would have required a dispensation, even if Catherine had not been in the picture at all. But both impediments, that between Henry and Catherine, and that between Henry and Anne, were of affinity.

The whole issue of Henry’s marriage, dynastic problems, the world of annulments/ dispensations/imediments, before Trent begain to take it in hand, Henry’s very ordinary search for an annulment, what it all led to, is unbelieveably convoluted and the 4000 character limit makes me address it in small bits. But Clement said nay, primarily because of who the nephew of Catherine was and because Clement remembered the battle of Pavia and what followed it, not because what Henry was asking was anything out of the ordinary.

Would be happy to address this further, if anyone wishes. As you might guess, it’s one of my minor hobbies.

Bottom line. Henry had good reason to expect Clement would grant the decree of nullity (though the causa he presented in his petition, based on Henry’s insistence, on the Levetical prohibitions, was weaker than it needed to be). Clement had good reason to wish Henry and his problem would go far away.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

oat soda,

The key point you are missing is that we don’t regard Henry VIII as our founder, because we don’t think that our political separation from Rome in the 1530s is the key moment in our history. You are welcome to disagree, but you aren’t going to get very far talking to Anglicans if you insist on characterizing our history in a way that makes absolutely no sense to us.

Also, “Anglo-Catholic” is an accepted term referring to the claim of many Anglicans to be Catholic rather than Protestant. Naturally you disagree with the claim. I find many forms of it unconvincing, myself. If you don’t want to use the term, fine. But don’t object to other people using it when it has an accepted and well-defined meaning. One of the least pleasant aspects of these boards is the tendency of some Catholics to try to bully other people into using terminology that implies the truth of Catholicism. This is just foolish. You aren’t going to convert us by railing at the way we use the language.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[mean_owen]

HagiaSophia:

One of the better observations in this thread.

Actually, I mispoke. Sewanee was the 1899 Southern Champions in football, going undefeated. They’re not doing so well these days, but you have to cut them some slack, as they are forced to go against such powerhouses as Washington and Lee, Rhodes, and DePauw. I’ll bet they have awesome equestrian and field hockey teams, tho.

On another note, thanks to Contarini, QV, GKC, Tantum, Gottle, and others for explaining/clarifying Anglican history and positions. I’d do it myself, but such actitities detract from my primary vocation as wisenheimer.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I posted this on another forum thread. It contains an exerpt from a letter written by a now former Anglican priest, who fought valiantly for years to try and return his denomination to those truths it possessed.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=259924&postcount=13

Blessings,

Gerry