So… a bunch of Anglicans, tired of the ongoing implosion due to sheer anti-Christian stupidity in the Anglican communion, asks the Holy See whether it couldn’t be possible to embrace the fullness of the Catholic Faith and keep their traditions.
The Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West (yah… I know), says, "Sure!"
And now I read this:
Anglicans split over election of lesbian bishop
Love that headline.
They "split"… get it?
How many ways can we interpret that?
The future of the worldwide Anglican Communion was in jeopardy last night after the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the election of a lesbian bishop in the United States raised “very serious questions”. [They are still asking question. That’s nice.]
Dr Rowan Williams added that the choice of Canon Mary Glasspool to be a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles had “important implications”. [yawn] The election of Canon Glasspool, who has lived with the same female partner since 1988, is the second appointment of an openly homosexual bishop in the US Episcopal Church. It confirmed fears among evangelicals in the Anglican Communion of more than 70 million people that crucial votes at last summer’s General Convention of the Episcopal Church had in effect ended the moratorium on gay bishops.
Liberals in England are increasingly frustrated that Dr Williams, who was elected for his supposedly liberal views, has embraced conservative Christian values in the name of unity.
However, it is almost certain that Canon Glasspool’s consecration will go ahead. She said: “Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights.” She was elected on a seventh ballot that included two other candidates, winning 153 clergy votes and 203 lay votes, just enough to emerge as the winner.
Campaigners for equality for lesbian and gay Christians welcomed the election result. The Very Rev Mark Kowalewski, Dean of St John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles, said: “I don’t think it’s a referendum on electing a woman or a gay person. Those are secondary characteristics.”
Where have I seen that before?
Ho-hum. So another practicing homosexual—and a woman—gets to dress up and play bishop. All the while, the Anglican “communion” continues to implode while the Episcopal Church in the USA is less and less recognizably Christian and more and more irrelevant.
Aside from being horrified, I am also fascinated by this. Living in the South, we have a super-abundance of strange religions (there are, by example, “Holy Jerusalem Deliverance” chapels, etc.) But that the gouty wife-killing arch-heretic who set in motion the Anglican Church, Henry VII, should see the fruit of his labors in a lesbian bishopette is perhaps not surprising, but it is interesting.
Today I went to to St. Anthony of Padua Chapel (SSPX) near Charlotte, NC. A heavenly, transcendent experience! The choir is unreal! Their voices superb and accomplished, with perfect renderings in both male and female voices. A true treat–the best regular church choir I have heard anywhere in the U.S. or Europe (particularly France, where I’ve heard mass recently.) The priests there are rock-solid in their theology, and, frankly, I’m glad they are keeping the mass at an hour-and-a-half (I could sit there all day, but my children have gotten restless with an over-two hour mass in the past.) I am not SSPX, and only hear their mass on occasion, but I am hugely sympathetic and admiring, in ways.
I mention all this by way of contrast with the article, supra. Whereas SSPX is changing and shaping Rome (ie Summorum Pontificum) and yet is in an “irregular” position, the Episcopaleans are drifting further and further away, and have never inspired Rome. So, and here is my point, to compare SSPX with the Anglicans is absurd. I hear it again and again: Rome did a, b, c, with the Anglicans, so maybe they can do the same with SSPX. That is absurd! SSPX never left Rome, and SSPX, in a sense, is helping Rome regain her senses and baring.
Now we know who will where the pants in that same-sex relationship. “Don’t tell me about God, my partner is a Bishopress!”. He He!!
None of them are priests, or bishops.
Correct Tim. Their priestesses, and bishopesses. In their eyes!. Not mine!.
I wonder when the questions will stop?. They keep on asking to many questions. Are they waiting for a sign?.
Reason No. 387,273 why I am no longer an Episcopalian.
One of the conservative Anglican bloggers developed Johnson’s Law: It is impossible to parody the Episcopal Church because they will get ahead of you every time.
You might spare a prayer for the remaining orthodox Anglicans . . . that the rest of the “high churchers” will come back across the Tiber, while the “low churchers” find refuge somewhere in a denomination that at least is still Christian.
No, becket1. I mean all Anglican and Episcopalian “clergy.” Male or female, heterosexual or not . . . none of them are priests or bishops. Anglican orders are absolutely null and void, as Pope Leo XIII stated in the papal bull, Apostolicae Curiae. That “church” is a brittle shell. The life blood ran out with the death of the Catholic martyrs in the 16th century.
I’m confused. Why would Robinson be OK but Glasspool would raise questions? Or did Williams never fully reconcile himself to Robinson? (Surely he would have known that once the camel’s nose is under the tent …)
Tim I was just being sarcastic!. Chill!. I know that they are not Priests or Bishops!. Nice website you have. Where do you go to the TLM in Philadelphia.
I like “bishopette” over “bishopess” personally, it’s a matter of semantics, I know, but it also sounds cuter…
News stories like this are ridiculous, exasperating, boring. Everyone knows that the battle is over. Decisions have already been made. It’s a done deal. The Episcopal Church of the USA is going its own way no matter what. They don’t care about unity with the larger Anglican Communion except if it agrees with their decisions, their ideology.
These stories just show that Dr. Williams and his like-minded colleagues don’t want to accept this reality. They’re in denial and so each new homosexual “bishop” is still a surprise to them. Hey, get over it. Move on!
Neither are ok…;) But, in the end, as folks say, their orders are invalid anyway (regardless of intentions…), so, except for the need to speak truth in charity to lies…regardless of their intention.
Just my $.02.
Actually, I am in the process of trying to trademark a Canon Mary Glasspool action figure for some girls attending Catholic schools in the Los Angeles diocese–I think they would sell very well, and I would give all proceeds to Tibetan mission work there…
Seems like The Episcopalians are onboard with the Pope’s program. They push’em out, we reel’em in. The timing couldn’t have been any better. I am sure Bp. Williams is saying the same thing. After trying to minimize the division in his ecclesial communion, this happens.
Maltese “bishopette if your not a lesbian and bishopess if you are.:)
What exactly is their “communion” anyway? Sounds more like a “You Go, I Go” Club!
It’s rather like putting a shoe in the oven and calling it a bisquit, ain’t it.
becket1: indeed, but what if said bishopette is bi? See, the waters get muddied. Ok, Ok, I agree with you, but only if said bishopette is only bi-curious….
What’s wrong with this picture?
Well, I can think of three things for sure…but then, again. I’m just a nasty Catholic priest who happens to be a religious.
Just another motivator for a goodly number of Episcopalians to consider converting to Catholicism..make that orthodox Catholicism.
“The future of the worldwide Anglican Communion was in jeopardy last night after the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the election of a lesbian bishop in the United States raised ‘very serious questions’…Dr Rowan Williams added that the choice of Canon Mary Glasspool to be a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles had ‘important implications.'”
Umm, yes, and what are the questions?
1. How many more Episcopalians will convert to Catholicism?
2. Will the Anglican Communion even survive?
And what are the implications?
1. Fewer and fewer Anglicans.
2. Dr. Williams seeing his “communion” in shambles.
I wonder if Dr. Williams has considered the possibility of “taking the plunge” and swimming over to Roma as well? I also wonder what Queen Elizabeth II is thinking about all this.
“Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights.”
Examples of groups of people can be identified by one isolated aspect of their persons:
* dead people (“what do you mean, `Dead people can’t vote’? he left instructions in his will for the next ten elections”)
* serial killers
* those who mistakenly believe that polonium is a necessary food supplement
These groups yearn for justice and equal rights, eh?
Judging from the traffic at various Anglican sites, remnant Episcopalians are exasperated by the latest developments, doublespeak and arrogance coming from TEC leaders. The plot line should be obvious to all by now, especially after Rowan William’s speech at the Gregorian. Anglican leadership (TEC, CofE and ACoC) has no intention of altering their position on women clergy, gay marriage or the ordination of practicing homosexuals. They say one thing and mean another. The word that comes to mind is disingenuous. Let’s move on from Canterbury and Gomorrah. On with Anglicanorum Coetibus and let’s not look back, lest we be turned into a pillar of salt.
one last observation: what if this bishopette is the “man” of her house: I mean the kind that has a deep voice and carries a strap-on in her purse? I think in that case we could call her “bishop” indeed, but, of course with a lower-case “b.” Just like protestants of all stripes call this or that TV personality “bishop.” Problem solved!
But, truthfully, we must qualify in this case, by saying, “Madame bishop,” otherwise she might be confused for the real thing…
‘As a Protestant I was always having to explain things to friends and acquaintances. Some lunatic Presbyterian denomination would ordain a gay sea lion and somebody at the office would ask, “You’re a Presbyterian, aren’t you?”‘ —–Greg Kehbiel, “Why I’m still Catholic,” Crisis, Dec. 2006
It is sad and laughable.Ask yourselves how many will be lost through this? How many will accede to evil inclinations convinced that an intrinsically disorded act is now acceptable? Many who are more traditional will not swim the tiber instead they will split and subdivide further forming various subgroups some which “ordain” women and some which do not. It is a Protestent habit when confronted with this scenario to form a different group. It is the full fruition of the error of private judgement over Revelation, Sacred Tradition and the magisterium. They are as far removed from the Apostolic Church as anyone could be. In this prayers should be offered for all involved.
Something similar is happening in Canada as well. Our local Anglican parish has installed a new pastor, who is gay and lives with her partner. I’ve heard that many people are hurting about this, and are contemplating leaving the parish and possibly joining the Catholic Church. However, given the state of the Church here in Quebec, I’m wondering … but hopefully the new members will help to bring some traditional values back to where they’re sorely needed.
Serious questions, eh? I think they’re the same questions. I just don’t think he has any answers to any of them yet. The big question is why?? Doesn’t he read scripture? At. All.?
One has to realise that the (London) Times has “The future of the worldwide Anglican Communion was in jeopardy last night after..” permanently set up in typeface. It goes with other useful phrases such as “Pound falls to all time low .. “.
The writing is on the wall for the C of E. In one way, for those in that Church sincerely seeking the right course, the way must now seem to be very clear, or should do: sign up on the dotted line. Many will: many will not.
On the other hand, Anglicanism is amorphous and self-regenerating and it will survive in whatever bizarre form is left to it. It really doesn’t stand now for anything useful at all and pleases nobody. We specialise in such creations in the UK. We have had 100s of years of practice.
“Fewer and fewer Anglicans.”
Indeed. And eventually you reach a point where the only thing left that’s fewer than “fewer” is…zero.
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has an average Sunday attendance (ASA) of about 20,000. Which means about twice that number of active parishioners.
Think about that. That’s about the equivalent of a handful of goodly-sized Catholic suburban parishes. The Episcopalians of LA are battling over who gets to be general of the platoon.
Meanwhile, the latest numbers for the Episcopal Church are out…and membership declines continue their steep descent.
At some point, do they every stop to ask themselves why? More to the point: At some point, don’t Catholics who advocate many of the same positions stop to ask themselves why the Episcopal Church is in demographic collapse? Because they can’t blame on their stubborn opposition to contraceptives.
Pray for these Anglicans.
becket1, I attend St. Jude’s Church, an SSPX chapel just outside of Philadelphia, because I feel bound in conscience to support the SSPX. The other parishes that offer the traditional Latin Mass in this area, such as Our Lady of Lourdes, St. Paul’s, and Mater Ecclesiae (a personal parish designated for traditional Catholics in Berlin, NJ) are all good, too.
In the midst of your mockery of the Archbishop’s press release on this issue (and note that this election will have to be confirmed by a vote at the national synod, which is not at all guaranteed in the current climate), bear in mind that the Anglican Church in Uganda is lending its support to a bill before their country’s parliament that would impose life sentences or execution on some “homosexual offenders” and would imprison for up to seven years people — including priests — who failed to “report” gay people to the authorities once their orientation became known to them (some discussion and links here). The whole business seems to have been stoked by American conservatives. In other words, you can’t tar the whole Anglican communion with the same brush. And if it comes to schism, guess which side I’m inclined to go with…
Nice rabbit hole you’ve dug there, Archicantor.
david andrew: Yup, we’re in a right pickle. I’ll let you know when I’ve dug to China! The good news is that for the most part all this seems to make zero difference at the parish level here in the Church of England, where on any given Sunday I am more likely to be perturbed by the usual lame preaching and banal liturgy. The latter we mostly borrowed from you guys (a la Bugnini)… What were we thinking? On the plus side, at least in my parish, “See how they love one another.”
Sadly, we have a number of fellow travelers in our midst, as evidenced by the following comment that appeared with the WSJ article on this issue:
“So what…no big deal! I wish more Christians would focus on doing good. I heard a (good) Catholic priest say during his homily recently that all these “rules” being handed down by the Vatican and other church authorities were “not important”…what was important he told us was that we lived the gospel each and every day…that we heeded Jesus’s words…to “love one another as I have loved you.”.
I wonder how many of our own people in the pews are being fed such subversive claptrap.
When your Church was founded by God-among-us, then you tend to be quite careful about second guessing your founder.
When your church was founded by a mere mortal (i.e. Luther or Henry VIII), then the founding principles are, apparently, a little more malleable.
I’m sure there are a number of women’s religious congregations currently under scrutiny that she could join should she continue to feel “oppressed”.
“They “split”… get it?
How many ways can we interpret that?”
I am soooo not going there………
One can imagine Barbara Boxer uh, Bishopress Glasspool saying, “Please, do not call me m’amn. I worked very hard to become a Bishopette”. Although to whom she might reply…?
“So what…no big deal! I wish more Christians would focus on doing good”
Where did the idea originate that the more seriously you take your faith, the less you care about the poor? It’s insulting frankly, and it would be instructive to look at such things as stewardship (giving) and the such among Traditional Catholics (whatever that might mean) as compared to a “Spirit of Vatican II” parish. Just wondering how it would pan out.
As a life-long Catholic living in an absolute monarchy [The Church], I am always surprised the way other churches govern themselves with voting.
The use of localized voting can be used for minor issues. The end-result of votes as a method of discerning Truth can only lead to confusion and splintering.
In the midst of a Democracy, this method seems odder and odder to me. Over the last few years our parish choir has gone through changes and difference in approach, with some dissension. A good friend of mine, a relatively ‘new’ Catholic re-vert, mentioned to me “you know, that kind of disagreement in a Protestant church would have created a new group going off and starting another church!” It was a great comfort to my friend to see how we stuck together and stayed in place in spite of disagreement.
It is freeing not to have to discern every little thing as being good/bad, faithful, sinful or not. The Church already has thought through all of these things. Watching the Episcopalian squirming gives me a new appreciation for absolute authority and the security of Truth in the Catholic Church.
I second the motion, Tina, as long we all understand our soverign is, always was and always will be Christ the King.
Thanks Ferde :-)
Our Pope is a monarch, as the Vicar of Christ, he is head of the visible Church with its Princes and people.
After certain Vatican II changes, bishops have been allowed unprecedented power that gives a different impression of the true organization of Church authority. At times I see the divisive characteristics of this kind of voting in the USCCB.
But isn’t the Roman Catholic Church a set of “Inconvenient Truths”??? Other faiths (and even some Catholics :( ) have tossed books of the Bible, and, IMO, Commandments either to justify their faith or to fit in the “mainstream.”
Ever notice how ‘mannish-looking’ these ‘she-males’ are?
Oy….only in California!
Communist Goals (1963):
25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”
27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
As one of my Angelicum profs, knowing that I was an ex Episcopalian, told me about Apostolicae Curae:
If it is true, then we are sending priests and bishops to Ecumenical meetings with laity who think they are priests and bishops . . . This is a problem.
Wait ’til the next remake “The Bishop’s Wife.” With Meredith Baxter? Oh, my.
Rowan Williams is fiddling while his communion burns. He is too damned thoughtful (or so they say he’s erudite) for the good of the Anglican Communion. He can’t reach conclusions. Talk about voting present. He and Obie would make a team.
…thinking this is the logical conclusion to the Anglican Communion, inevitable since its break with Rome…it’s like divorcing the dollar from gold…