Acolyte, Photo, Userpic

Is homosexual practice compatible with classical Anglicanism? What about the ordiation of women?

Lately, I have been re-evaluating my position on homosexual practice, based on my own experiences, the consensus of the worldwide church, and what seems to be the undivided consensus of the Fathers. In essence, it seems that most of the people who share my conviction that the Creeds and the early Fathers are central to an Anglican reading of scripture do not share my belief that committed, monogamous gay relationships can be considered Christian marriages. Furthermore, my own use of my own homosexual orientation has not been very god-honoring, to the point that I now think that at least for now, complete celibacy, even to the level of fantasies and masturbation, is the best option for me. And it seems like pro-gay societies are secular societies. So I find myself slipping unhappily to a more conservative position on same-sex relationships, just after I joined a church which takes a more liberal line on such things.

However, the Fathers are also consistently against ordaining women as priests, but world Anglicanism has accepted that this innovation is within an Anglican reading of Scripture. If we accept one innovation, why not the other. If the answer is that one innovation grosses out some people, and the other doesn't, then the innovation of same-sex unions IS compatible with classical Anglicanism, and a lot of the Anglican Communion needs to get over itself. If the ordination of women is not acceptable, than Anglicanism has failed and we all need to become RC or Orthodox, because clearly Tradition must be completely unchanging if we are to remain faithful Christians in our current culture. If the Anglican Communion is right that being a woman priest is OK but being a priest in a same sex union is not, what distinguishes the two innovations? Proponents of both have produced readings of Scripture in support of their positions, despite the traditional Scriptural prohibitions of both. What makes pro-woman-priest readings of scripture less esigetical then pro-gay ones?

Thoughts? I could really use some help with my current discernment process. I hope this post doesn't just lead to a flame war- if it does I will delete the whole thing.

If not, then what?

If you were in a place where there were no Anglican church in which to worship, to what other church would you go? Where would you never go, even if it were the only available church?
  • Current Mood
    curious curious

To puff, or not to puff?

A friend recently made a link to this article, and I find such puff pieces difficult to read. Now, Anglicanism (and especially the breadth thereof) was what brought me back to church after losing my faith completely: it gave me a faith in which I could believe. I really, quite unashamedly love it.

Yet, when I read the article, I cannot help but also think of Soupers, Catholic Penal Laws, Test Acts, and, of course, all of the vandalism attendant upon the Dissolution of the Monasteries. This reminds me of the purpose and value of the Κυριε ελεησον in the liturgy: the repeated request to Christ to continue to be merciful to us because we know that we will continue to screw up in the future as we have screwed up in the past.

While I am not saying that we should scourge ourselves for our sins, it very much seems to me that we should not ignore them either: we should embrace our fallenness and God's Grace together.

What do you think?
  • Current Mood
    contemplative contemplative
House Divided
  • adele87

(no subject)

Hi all,
I'm going to be confirmed in the ECUSA in the spring (either before or after Lent). I joined this community since you guys seem a little more active then the Episcopal community. Is it okay that I am here? The Episcopal Church is still considered "Anglican" since it's within the Anglican Communion, but there is also the Anglican Church of North America now, so if this is limited to ACNA and I am not welcome here, let me know.


Merry Christmas!
This little light of mine...
  • cmaried


I am having trouble understanding something. While Christians are instructed to take Communion, I don't understand how Christ currently offers Himself as a sacrifice in the Eucharist, when He already offered Himself on the Cross "once and for all", and declared that it was "finished". I've read part of the Catechism, but can't find anything that directly answers my question. 

Why would Jesus say His sacrifice is "once and for all" if He is currently being resacrificed in the Eucharist? 
I haven't looked up any Anglican articles yet, but will continue searching and hopefully come to a sound conclusion..soon.:-/
  • Current Mood
    confused confused
  • cmaried

Since it's been posted everywhere but here...Roman Catholic-Anglican Ecumenism

Roman Catholic church to receive Anglicans

Pope Benedict approves decree setting up worldwide institution to receive Anglican groups

rowan williams

The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, listens as the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, speaks during a news conference in London. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP

Thousands of Anglicans could defect to the Roman Catholic church after the pope today approved a new global institution to receive them.

It will be the first time since the Reformation in the 16th century that entire Protestant communities have reunited with Rome. The first group likely to take advantage of the new rules is the Traditional Anglican Community (TAC), which broke off from the rest of the community in 1991 and claims to have more than 500,000 members worldwide.

Other groups unhappy with developments in the Anglican Communion are also expected to accept the invitation from the Vatican. Traditionalists, including thousands in the Church of England, have long threatened to defect to Rome over issues such as the ordination of women and gay people.

Reflecting the importance of the initiative, the pope set out the new arrangements in an apostolic constitution, the highest form of pontifical decree, and press conferences were held simultaneously in London and the Vatican to announce it.

In Ecclestone Square, the administrative headquarters of the Catholic Church of England and Wales, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury and the Catholic archbishop of Westminster sat side by side on the top table in a show of unity, but the choice of location reflected the shift in power.

Both men played down any suggestion of tension brought on by the decision, but the unease became apparent in the question and answer session that followed.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, informed journalists that he only heard about the apostolic constitution "a couple of weeks ago" and that there was no input from or consultation with Lambeth Palace. His face reddened as he spoke and, at one point, the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, answered questions relating to Williams's leadership and authority.

Williams said: "I do not think this constitution will be seen as in any sense a commentary on Anglican problems offered by the Vatican. It is a response to this range of requests and inquiries from a very broad variety of people, either Anglican or of Anglican heritage. In that sense it has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic church as a whole. It is not an act of aggression, it is not a statement of no confidence. It is business as usual."

Benedict's chief theological adviser, the US cardinal William Levada, who heads one of the most important Vatican departments, said the decree had been drawn up "to respond to the numerous requests that have been submitted to the Holy See by groups of Anglican clerics and believers from various parts of the world who wish to enter into full and visible communion" with Rome.

He said that, under the new arrangements, Anglican communities that joined the Catholic church would be able to keep their own liturgy while remaining outside the existing dioceses. Their pastoral care would be entrusted instead to their own senior prelates, who would not necessarily become Catholic bishops. This is a way around the problem that in the Catholic church, as in the Orthodox churches, married men are not allowed to become bishops.


For Parents: When Do We Start Bringing Kids To "Big Church" Instead of the Nursery?

(cross posted to anglicanand episcopal
Simon turned 3 in January. He has come to church with me since he was born. Before I joined the choir, I regularly left the service during the offertory and brought Simon into the service to receive a blessing when I partake of communion. As he has gotten older he has naturally gotten more wiggly and more vocal. With sivib not coming to church with me, I am responsible for teaching Simon how to behave in Church.Simon loves the sanctuary and when he sees me come get him, he always says "we go sing songs, Papa?" (his name for Worship is logical to me because what is the main thing that goes on when he is there?) I am beginning to think, however, that 3 is a bit young for him to be in "big church" even for communion. This fall he'll move up to the Children's Service that Christ Church runs along with Sunday School for the kids (that starts for kids who are at least 3 in September of every year).

My initial thought was to expose him to the service little by little (i.e. communion). How do you folks with small children teach them how to act in the service and at what age do you think is appropriate to "take them out of the nursery"?
  • Current Mood
    thoughtful thoughtful

Fort Worth Votes 80%-20% To Leave TECUSA

...and join the Southern Cone.

Is Her Grace the Presiding Bishop now using a boiler plate to respond to all increasing number of dioceses and churches leaving?

Bishop Stanton of Dallas, however, refuses to move (quoting the Dallas Morning News today):

Bishop Stanton, who has sided with Bishop Iker in many church controversies, said that 80 percent of his parishioners had concerns about the direction of the national church. But 80 percent of them weren't troubled enough to want to leave.

The Dallas Diocese has seen some conservative churches leave on their own, including the large, influential Christ Church in Plano. But Bishop Stanton is disinclined to follow the lead of his close friend Bishop Iker.

"We're not going anywhere," Bishop Stanton said. "If I've heard it said once, I've heard it said a thousand times: You don't win a battle by leaving the battlefield."

  • Current Mood
    happy happy