Posted on 12/15/2002 5:01:22 PM PST by MadIvan
Gaudete, Gaudete, Christus est natus. Ex Maria, Virginae, Gaudete!!
Maybe the power, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any disciplinary action to happen here......
Have you ever read the minutes from the 1998 Lambeth Conference ? There are many resolutions, though not Canon law, that indeed favor the perversion of homosexuality.
…depending on what Canon Law is in Canada.
I didn’t know Canon law is by sovereignty, I think you are mistaken.
We’ve visited several alternative Anglican churches similar to the AMIA but it was too hard to adapt to the 1928 BofCP. We just want a normal ECUSA.
This sentence puzzled me until I realized that you mistakenly referenced the 1998 Lambeth Conference, whereas what you're really talking about was the ECUSA's 2000 General Convention. The former affirmed the traditional Biblical attitude towards homosexuality. The latter is definitely more accomodating towards homosexuals.
However, my statement still stands as fact; the ECUSA has so far not favored legitimizing "homosexual marriage". It became quite obvious at the 2000 General Convention that to do so would result in schism. And the ECUSA still officially forbids the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, but allows the ordination of celibate homosexuals. This is the same policy that's been followed in the Roman Catholic Church in America. Looks like the Romans are getting ready to change that. We'll see what the ECUSA does.
The ECUSA has an advantage over the RCC in America is that in the ECUSA the priests can marry, and that in each parish the laity does the hiring and firing of priests. That means that if an Episcopal priest is unmarried at (oh, say) 30 years of age or more, you've got a better idea of what you're dealing with than in the RCC, and the laity has a direct choice of whether or not they want to deal with that. And if they do choose to deal with that, they know what to keep an eye on, and they can get rid of the priest if they wish later on. Whereas an RCC parish has to take whomever the Bishop sends, and the parish never quite knows what they're dealing with. Nor can they do much about it.
Finally, the ECUSA is pretty good about understanding that civil law takes precedence over canon law in cases of child abuse. The ECUSA calls the cops, they don't shuffle abusers around.
Not particularly good Catholics. They are also Marxists.
I suggest you clean up your own house before critizing others.
I suggest you relax before you strain something.
Protestantism is one things that made England such a great country. When England became Protestant in the mid-16th century, England's Catholic continental European enemies inparticular Spain and France imposed an embargo on England. Subsequently England was forced to look afar for trade and commerce, hence establishing its North American and West Indian colonies. The swashbuckler Sir Walter Raleigh along with Richard Grenville and Francis Drake defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588 and saved England from Catholic despotism and tyranny. Look at how the Spanish treated Protestants in Holland at that time. Protestant Raleigh extablished the first colony of England in America in 1584, he named the land Virginia after the "virgin" Queen Elizabeth I
Yes, Protestanism was good for quite some time. However, the Anglican Church is widely acknowledged to be a joke, particularly in England. It's filled with leftists.
Yes I'm a Protestant, and I'm damn proud of it! Long live William of Orange!!!!!!!!!
That'd be difficult. He's already dead.
Ivan
*ROFL*!!! Now THAT'S funny! You know How I feel about ol' Bill! ;-)
You are correct, my apologies.
The latter is definitely more accommodating towards homosexuals… However, my statement still stands as fact; the ECUSA has so far not favored legitimizing "homosexual marriage".
It would seem these two statements are in direct conflict with each other. The Bishops in my diocese would not agree with you.
And the ECUSA still officially forbids the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, but allows the ordination of celibate homosexuals.
That’s ridiculous on its face, and certainly not cannon law.
There is no person or body in the Anglican Community that can write Canon Law that has force Community-wide.
My rector would disagree with that statement
…although there's always the threat that they can get thrown out of the Anglican Community.
And what would get them kicked out? Breaking Canon Law.
Man, you should have tried adapting to the 1979 book! It was rough!
(Q: How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fifteen. One to change the bulb, and fourteen to stand around and talk about how much better the old one was . . . )
:-D
I can appreciate that but at that time I didn’t know any difference. And as an adult I question the ordination of women, at that time I was not aware of the prohibition in the Bible. Hope that doesn’t sound sexist.
I do try to consider the question of the ordination of women dispassionately. When it first came up, I thought "why not? if somebody has a genuine call, they should be able to answer it . . . "
My experience with ordained women, however, has led me to conclude that there were good and valid reasons for forbidding female ordination. Our church is a "training parish" - a large parish in which newly ordained priests spend a year or two in a sort of apprenticeship before they are sent out to smaller parishes. We have had a LOT of women come through here since the Episcopal Church permitted ordination of women -- probably at least 25 so it's a pretty good sample.
There has been ONE exception to the general rule that these women have been ineffectual as priests. That one priest is a level-headed, straightforward woman with a good classical education, solid Biblical knowledge, and a conservative outlook. She is now in a prominent metro parish and doing great things.
But the rest of them have not been good. Most have been way too New Agey and feminist, one even preached on "God the Mother" (she couldn't leave soon enough to suit me.) A couple have been pretty flagrant in their lifestyle so as to cast doubt on their sexual orientation (living with another woman and kissing, hugging her in public, way too touchy-feely with other women, etc.) But my major objection has been to their leadership style. I wish I could quantify my objections better, but they are so busy trying to "get consensus" that they don't lead. They also don't confront problems straight on, but tend to try to avoid or work around them. Plus, they seem to encourage gossip and backbiting rather than honest dialogue.
Frankly, I have been underwhelmed.
Of course, this doesn't even address the problem of the priest as imago Christi, a stand-in for Our Lord as the bridegroom of the Church at the marriage supper of the Lamb. It does look strange for a woman to be doing that. (Plus they can never seem to figure out which octave to sing in. ;-) )
Ours is too, I go to the Church of the Presidents actually. And all the political correctness to go along with that. In fact our female asst. Rector announced her “liberal” political disposition in a sermon last month. NO SURPRISE! A quick story; when we went through reconfirmation classes we had to suffer a sermon on “homophobia” from “Bishop” Jane Dixon at the National Cathedral. It was totally out of line not to mention my 9-year-old son had to hear it having not been exposed to homosexuality before. It was extremely obvious that there were several lesbian “rectors” from other parishes participating in the service as well, I was pretty grossed out.
As for female clergy in general I have no bias for or against other than (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and (1 Timothy 2:11-14). I am sorry to hear about your negative experiences with the female clergy in your parish but don’t use anecdotal evidence sway your opinion, just let The Word guide you.
Another thing that your post called to mind . . . there is NO WAY that a female priest could have risen sufficiently high in the hierarchy to be consecrated a Bishop as quickly as the Episcopal Church did. (Who was that nutty woman who became the bishop of Boston? I think she was the first, and she hadn't even been ordained all that long.) For women to be taken seriously as priests, the higher-ups need to quit promoting them for invidious reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.