Episcopal Church Dissed in Two Consecration Venues

There are 265 comments on the www.virtueonline.org story from Aug 15, 2010, titled Episcopal Church Dissed in Two Consecration Venues. In it, www.virtueonline.org reports that:

The Episcopal Church has been told politely but firmly that they cannot hold the consecration of two Episcopal bishops because of the denomination's position on sexuality issues that are contrary to Scripture, tradition and history ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.virtueonline.org.

First Prev
of 14
Next Last

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 Aug 15, 2010
from virtueonline:

"From the Diocese of the Rio Grande, a VOL reader wrote to say that the Diocese was supposed to have the ordination of its new liberal bishop at Hoffmantown Baptist Church, the largest church in Albuquerque.'When someone called them and mentioned that V. Gene Robinson, the activist homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire, would be attending the consecration, they pulled the rug from under the feet of the Diocese and dis-invited them.

"To date, the diocese has not found another venue for the ordination and has resorted to using the ballroom of a hotel in Albuquerque."

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#2 Aug 15, 2010
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from virtueonline:
"From the Diocese of the Rio Grande, a VOL reader wrote to say that the Diocese was supposed to have the ordination of its new liberal bishop at Hoffmantown Baptist Church, the largest church in Albuquerque.'When someone called them and mentioned that V. Gene Robinson, the activist homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire, would be attending the consecration, they pulled the rug from under the feet of the Diocese and dis-invited them.
"To date, the diocese has not found another venue for the ordination and has resorted to using the ballroom of a hotel in Albuquerque."
The article states that, in Alaska, the Methodist Church has offered to allow the bishop to be consecrated in one of their facilities.

From Virtueonline:

"...Episcopal Church has fallen so far from traditional faith that the Catholic Church cannot in good conscience give credence to such hypocrisy and faithlessness."

Such hypocrisy and faithlessness on display from the Roman Catholic Church is par for the course from them. How many of their present and past clergy, brothers, sisters, deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals - and past popes are gay or lesbian?

The Episcopal Church both asks and offers to consecrate a heterosexual bishop in a Roman Catholic cathedral and in another place, within a Baptist Church. At first it is acceptable. But, then it is determined to be too controversial.

The Episcopal Church, and through its Presiding Bishop, K. Jefferts-Schori, continues to show the Way, the Truth and the Light, Life and Love that her mentor Christ Jesus has provided for her to display. She does so with excellent Grace to the credit of all Christians in all denominations.

The contributors to Virtueonline can't stand it. They publish essays and articles in an effort to discredit both TEC and bishop Jefferts-Schori and all that they succeed in doing is to advance the awareness of Christians in all denominations, including the Roman Catholics and the Baptists that we are bringing the Light of Christ up in intensity.

Read their disparaging words: "...has fallen so far from traditional faith..."

Understand the reality: "...has lifted up the cause of the Gospel of Christ Jesus by demonstrating a living faith made available to all..."

Christ is risen. Hallelujah!

Rev. Ken

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

#3 Aug 15, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ is risen. Hallelujah!
Yes, we all know you can say the words.

Do you understand them?
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#4 Aug 15, 2010
Maybe I don't understand something here, but why is The Episcopal Church NOT holding these consecrations IN an Episcopal Church ?!

How does this make sense ?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#5 Aug 16, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
Maybe I don't understand something here, but why is The Episcopal Church NOT holding these consecrations IN an Episcopal Church ?...
Although there are Episicopal churches, they have no cathedral in Alaska, and this is a consecration.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#6 Aug 16, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The article states that, in Alaska, the Methodist Church has offered to allow the bishop to be consecrated in one of their facilities ...
Only after the RCC changed its mind.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#7 Aug 16, 2010
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Although there are Episicopal churches, they have no cathedral in Alaska, and this is a consecration.
What's the difference between a cathedral and a church ? And why does it have to be held in a cathedral and not a church ?

(I'm a Lutheran (ELCA) and we don't have cathedrals. I thought a cathedral was just a big church. No ?)
Dan

United States

#8 Aug 16, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The article states that, in Alaska, the Methodist Church has offered to allow the bishop to be consecrated in one of their facilities.
From Virtueonline:
"...Episcopal Church has fallen so far from traditional faith that the Catholic Church cannot in good conscience give credence to such hypocrisy and faithlessness."
Such hypocrisy and faithlessness on display from the Roman Catholic Church is par for the course from them. How many of their present and past clergy, brothers, sisters, deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals - and past popes are gay or lesbian?
The Episcopal Church both asks and offers to consecrate a heterosexual bishop in a Roman Catholic cathedral and in another place, within a Baptist Church. At first it is acceptable. But, then it is determined to be too controversial.
The Episcopal Church, and through its Presiding Bishop, K. Jefferts-Schori, continues to show the Way, the Truth and the Light, Life and Love that her mentor Christ Jesus has provided for her to display. She does so with excellent Grace to the credit of all Christians in all denominations.
The contributors to Virtueonline can't stand it. They publish essays and articles in an effort to discredit both TEC and bishop Jefferts-Schori and all that they succeed in doing is to advance the awareness of Christians in all denominations, including the Roman Catholics and the Baptists that we are bringing the Light of Christ up in intensity.
Read their disparaging words: "...has fallen so far from traditional faith..."
Understand the reality: "...has lifted up the cause of the Gospel of Christ Jesus by demonstrating a living faith made available to all..."
Christ is risen. Hallelujah!
Rev. Ken
I'm not sure why you think the possibility of RCC clergy being gay makes them hypocritical. They don't get selected for office based on their demonstrated propensity to persist in the sinful behavior. PB Schiori seems to making that a litmus test for ordination.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#9 Aug 16, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between a cathedral and a church ? And why does it have to be held in a cathedral and not a church ?...
I sure you have a dictionary handy, but as to your second, this installation is of a bishop, and apparently a more prestigious venue is required.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#10 Aug 16, 2010
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
I sure you have a dictionary handy, but as to your second, this installation is of a bishop, and apparently a more prestigious venue is required.
Well our bishops are all elected, so maybe that's why it's so different.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#11 Aug 16, 2010
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you think the possibility of RCC clergy being gay makes them hypocritical. They don't get selected for office based on their demonstrated propensity to persist in the sinful behavior. PB Schiori seems to making that a litmus test for ordination.
Dan,

The great controversy in all of this is a disagreement within Christianity, in general, about the real sources and causes and effects of homosexuality.

The controversy focuses on how humans view their own sexuality, individually. The truth is that we are not all the same. In fact, one can reasonably and responsibly show that no two of us are alike, either as males or females or somewhere in between or as matched or pair-bonded couples.

We find our mates in a cultural and social dance that gives each individual a limited exposure to members of the opposite sex, in which one is alloted a period within one's lifetime to "pair-up" as it were.

The same thing happens in every culture. But, there are adaptations to the event that fit social and cultural and tribal goals. Some marriages are arranged. In some societies, the bonding is able to occur across previously uncrossable lines of stratification that had effectively prevented such bonds.

Take, for instance, an illicit love affair between an Indian princess and a brave from a competing or warring tribe, resulting in an outcrop of rock on a mountainside being named "lover's leap."

Sin becomes the focus. What is acceptable to some is taboo or not permitted to others. Sharia Law, for example, does not permit marriage outside of accepted racial definitions. The same can be said in the past of the Southern Baptists. Hindu caste prevents the common from intermarrying with the Royal bloodlines. In Jewry, it was an unforgivable act for a Jewish girl to marry a gentile.

Now, in the latter half of the 20th Century, western psychological research and genetic studies are blurring the lines of some deeply traditional definitions of sin. Is the homosexual born to be attracted to a member of the same sex or not? Is such behavior a chosen lifestyle and a perverted obsession interwoven in sexual addiction and debilitating sexual perversion? Or is it a natural bonding between individuals who are merely born with a normal variation of sexual expression?

The Roman Catholics, for centuries, have harbored homosexuals in the ranks of their clergy, including pedophiles. Now, these inclinations are being revealed. Can they change their stripes? Maybe.

In the meantime, Churches, such as TEC, are going a different route. These are embracing people who are obviously not purely heterosexual - as if there ever was such a thing as the mythical "Adam and Eve." WE, TEC, are CHOOSING to recognize that homosexuality has always been a part of the spectrum of expression of human sexuality. But, it has always been mostly misunderstood.

It is a very definite redefinition of sin - as defined by scripture. There is no use in trying to hide this. Scripture does not favorably recognize homosexual behavior. At best, the most advanced teachings are nearly silent about it.

But, the truth is, homosexual relationships can be every bit as mutually supportive, loving and care-taking and helpful in allowing one or the other to seek his or her spiritual growth as heterosexual relationships are supposed to be. We have correctly come to the understanding and realization that such relationships can be effective in providing a foundation for the individuals to successfully contribute to their society.

But, there are many who cannot grasp this change in view. Instead, they are much more dependent upon traditional mores and the guidance provided by ancient scripture, no matter how obviously flawed such guidance has proven to be in the past.

Only time and Light and Love will prevail over the darkness of the past. But, prevail it will.

Rev. Ken
T McCabe

Fayetteville, TN

#12 Aug 16, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between a cathedral and a church ? And why does it have to be held in a cathedral and not a church ?
(I'm a Lutheran (ELCA) and we don't have cathedrals. I thought a cathedral was just a big church. No ?)
A cathedral is both a church and the seat of a bishop. It is the place that has his 'chair'- the Latin is cathedra for "seat" often called the 'an episcopal throne'.

The bishop can be consecrated in any place. It is just nice to have it in a big church. It could be in a stadium or cow pasture if need be. It isn't the location that is important. It is the rite used, the vows taken and the laying on of hands by fellow bishops that are key to the service.

The entire service is found online in The Book of Common Prayer.
Listen to the Word

Kingman, AZ

#13 Aug 16, 2010
A living faith is available to all, but the path to that living faith is repentance awakened by the Spirit through the Word of God, not clinging to sin okayed by the gay activist movement.

The Reformation started because the Western church forgot how a person is saved. The issue was repentance and faith (read Luther's 95 Theses which started the Reformation in earnest). The modern church has gone back to the Roman church before the Reformation -- salvation without a life of repentance.

So again, the issue is whether homosexuality is a sin. Since conservatives say it is and liberals say it isn't, both based on the same Bible verses, the real issue is how to understand the Bible. Do the words mean what they have always meant (the conservative view) or do the words mean something other than what they always meant (liberal view). If the liberal view of right, we are right back to the Roman church before the Reformation -- the Bible is so difficult to understand that we need select interpreters to tell us what it means. I suggest that the modern church needs another Reformation to settle the disute in the church as to what the Bible is and how it is to be understood. Of course, that can never happen. Luther had one stationary target -- the papacy. Today there are too many moving targets.
T McCabe

Fayetteville, TN

#14 Aug 16, 2010
Listen to the Word wrote:

"The Reformation started because the Western church forgot how a person is saved. The issue was repentance and faith (read Luther's 95 Theses which started the Reformation in earnest). The modern church has gone back to the Roman church before the Reformation -- salvation without a life of repentance."

That is only part of the true.

Luther was only one of many reformers.

'Calvinist' often thought that repentance had nothing to do with salvation.'The Saints' were all destined for salvation all all of the rest of mankind to damnation via the concept of predestination and God's foreknowledge.

Salvation is a free gift of God.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#15 Aug 16, 2010
Listen to the Word wrote:
A living faith is available to all, but the path to that living faith is repentance awakened by the Spirit through the Word of God, not clinging to sin okayed by the gay activist movement.
The Reformation started because the Western church forgot how a person is saved. The issue was repentance and faith (read Luther's 95 Theses which started the Reformation in earnest). The modern church has gone back to the Roman church before the Reformation -- salvation without a life of repentance.
So again, the issue is whether homosexuality is a sin. Since conservatives say it is and liberals say it isn't, both based on the same Bible verses, the real issue is how to understand the Bible. Do the words mean what they have always meant (the conservative view) or do the words mean something other than what they always meant (liberal view). If the liberal view of right, we are right back to the Roman church before the Reformation -- the Bible is so difficult to understand that we need select interpreters to tell us what it means. I suggest that the modern church needs another Reformation to settle the disute in the church as to what the Bible is and how it is to be understood. Of course, that can never happen. Luther had one stationary target -- the papacy. Today there are too many moving targets.
Dear Listen,

Although I appreciate the view you have expressed, the fact is that the motivation for the moving along the pathway chosen by TEC is far more upon a vanguard than you have admitted.

It is neither a result of Reformation or a lack thereof.

It is a recognition that Tradition and Scripture have always been mutually self-reinforcing - always - to the detriment of Reason. But, that is why Reason must be admitted. Without Reason and its sister in Wisdom, we become habitual to the detriment of functioning in the Holy Spirit.

KGC

Since: Jul 10

Marion, MI

#16 Aug 16, 2010
Hello Rev Ken,

My, my, my, your Gnostic beliefs are shining through admirably.

Further, I was wondering where you stood biblically and after seeing your phrase "the mythical Adam and Eve" I understood all I needed to about your doctrinal positions:

You're an Apostate.

Were Adam and Eve to be mythical, then the ENTIRE OT is Mythical.

Since Jesus is cited quite clearly in the Gospels referring to major aspects of the OT; Noahaic Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham and the OT Covenant, etc., then using your standard of biblical vercity, Jesus MUST have lied about the OT.

Post-Resurrection (another 'mythical' event in your book?) Jesus revealed to His followers all the things relating to Him in the OT, the Pentateuch, as well as the Lesser and Greater Prophets, all things that pertained to Messiah.

The scriptures pertaining to Messiah begin in Genesis and continue throughout the entire OT.

What you're doing is what Nimrod, Jezebel, Balaam, and so many others have done concerning the Word of God in the past: you've re-defined it to suit your own needs.

You've attempted to supercede the Wisdom of God with the wisdom of man.

Gnosticism at the foundation: some 'secret knowledge', taught of course ONLY by the few 'masters' of became 'enlightened' through the secret knowledge.

The current ongoing deluge of human made 'wisdom' and re-definitions of Scripture are just another sign on the Roadway to the 2nd Coming, that God is separating the sheep from the goats and He's starting with the church.

Carnals are not biblical Christians and Gnostics most assuredly are not; you're no better than the JW's, Mormons (Polytheists both), Rosicrucians, et al.

Free Will is a great gift from God: but He holds us to account for our choices and also to accept the consequences of our choices.

Here's a few short 400 word articles on Examiner that will clue you in to the specifics:

http://www.examiner.com/christianity-in-caspe...

http://www.examiner.com/christianity-in-caspe...

http://www.examiner.com/christianity-in-caspe...

http://www.examiner.com/christianity-in-caspe...

The above articles deal with the Anglican Church and homosexuality, issues of Obedience to Christ vs human cultural paradigms, the Lutherans delving into pro-homosexuality issues, etc.

Hope this opens your eyes to the fallacy of your positions.

Cheers.
Dan

United States

#17 Aug 16, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan,
The great controversy in all of this is a disagreement within Christianity, in general, about the real sources and causes and effects of homosexuality........
Rev. Ken
The RCC doesn't condemn homosexuals, so the revelation that there may be homosexual clerics isn't really "revelatory", nor does it dictate any reconsideration of their position.

Also, your comment "We have correctly come to the understanding and realization that such relationships can be effective in providing a foundation for the individuals to successfully contribute to their society." was a bit of a puzzlement. I'm not sure who claimed that homosexuals cannot contribute to society, but I don't think TEC can claim primacy on any conclusions to the contrary. The comment does shed some light on how TEC regards their fellows who may disagree with them on gay marriage. Apparently, those who may not agree are the "great unwashed" or similar?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#18 Aug 16, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Well our bishops are all elected, so maybe that's why it's so different.
However you chose them, don't all bishops still have to be officially installed during a public ceremony?

Since: Sep 09

U.S.

#19 Aug 16, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan,
The great controversy in all of this is a disagreement within Christianity, in general, about the real sources and causes and effects of homosexuality.
The controversy focuses on how humans view their own sexuality, individually. The truth is that we are not all the same. In fact, one can reasonably and responsibly show that no two of us are alike, either as males or females or somewhere in between or as matched or pair-bonded couples.
We find our mates in a cultural and social dance that gives each individual a limited exposure to members of the opposite sex, in which one is alloted a period within one's lifetime to "pair-up" as it were.
The same thing happens in every culture. But, there are adaptations to the event that fit social and cultural and tribal goals. Some marriages are arranged. In some societies, the bonding is able to occur across previously uncrossable lines of stratification that had effectively prevented such bonds.
Take, for instance, an illicit love affair between an Indian princess and a brave from a competing or warring tribe, resulting in an outcrop of rock on a mountainside being named "lover's leap."
Sin becomes the focus. What is acceptable to some is taboo or not permitted to others. Sharia Law, for example, does not permit marriage outside of accepted racial definitions. The same can be said in the past of the Southern Baptists. Hindu caste prevents the common from intermarrying with the Royal bloodlines. In Jewry, it was an unforgivable act for a Jewish girl to marry a gentile.
Now, in the latter half of the 20th Century, western psychological research and genetic studies are blurring the lines of some deeply traditional definitions of sin. Is the homosexual born to be attracted to a member of the same sex or not? Is such behavior a chosen lifestyle and a perverted obsession interwoven in sexual addiction and debilitating sexual perversion? Or is it a natural bonding between individuals who are merely born with a normal variation of sexual expression?
The Roman Catholics, for centuries, have harbored homosexuals in the ranks of their clergy, including pedophiles. Now, these inclinations are being revealed. Can they change their stripes? Maybe.
In the meantime, Churches, such as TEC, are going a different route. These are embracing people who are obviously not purely heterosexual - as if there ever was such a thing as the mythical "Adam and Eve." WE, TEC, are CHOOSING to recognize that homosexuality has always been a part of the spectrum of expression of human sexuality. But, it has always been mostly misunderstood.
It is a very definite redefinition of sin - as defined by scripture. There is no use in trying to hide this. Scripture does not favorably recognize homosexual behavior. At best, the most advanced teachings are nearly silent about it.
But, the truth is, homosexual relationships can be every bit as mutually supportive, loving and care-taking and helpful in allowing one or the other to seek his or her spiritual growth as heterosexual relationships are supposed to be. We have correctly come to the understanding and realization that such relationships can be effective in providing a foundation for the individuals to successfully contribute to their society.
But, there are many who cannot grasp this change in view. Instead, they are much more dependent upon traditional mores and the guidance provided by ancient scripture, no matter how obviously flawed such guidance has proven to be in the past.
Only time and Light and Love will prevail over the darkness of the past. But, prevail it will.
Rev. Ken
As a gay man, I would like to thank you for this comment. It's compassionate and non-judging (something we don't always see from those within the church, no slight intended).

Namaste,
Michael

Since: Sep 09

U.S.

#20 Aug 16, 2010
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>[...]
The Roman Catholics, for centuries, have harbored homosexuals in the ranks of their clergy, including pedophiles. Now, these inclinations are being revealed. Can they change their stripes? Maybe.[...]
There is only one thing that you stated, which I wish had been worded a bit more carefully. Homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely exclusive of one another (goes to the sentence "..have harbored homosexuals in the ranks of their clergy, including pedophiles"). Some pedophiles are homosexual, just as some who practice pedophilia are heterosexual (or even bisexual). Unfortunately, many who have read about the priests in the RCC who have been rumored (or charged with and found guilty of) to have abused underage boys, have assumed that all such priests are homosexuals. Given the nature of what I understand pedophilia to be about (primarily control, the same as with rape), I'm not so inclined to believe such associations necessarily do correctly identify such a priest as a "homosexual" (although there may be other evidence, on a case by case basis, which would support such an identification).

I'm not saying there aren't homosexual pedophiles; I'm sure there are, just as there are heterosexual pedophiles. Unfortunately, bad apples exist among all walks of life.

But again, thank you for the comment. It was well thought out and written with sensitivity.

Namaste,
Michael

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ketchikan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Gay Marriage - Ketchikan, AK (Jan '12) Mon mac 4
Josephine Litwak May 7 mandylloyd 1
Debate: Marijuana - Ketchikan, AK (Aug '10) Mar '15 bill 34
Horrible Hurd Feb '15 Bogwon 1
News Vessel haulout system something 'like Egyptians... Feb '15 jax23willis 1
O'Reilly Auto Parts Jan '15 Just curious 1
Daniel S Sullivan… LIES, LIES and MORE LIES…wan... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Worried voter 1
More from around the web

Ketchikan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]