Thursday, January 06, 2011

On the marriage of lesbians


Two ordained Episcopal lesbians kicked off the New Year by marrying in Massachusetts.

But this was not some little local difficulty and low-key affair presided over by a renegade vicar in defiance of his bishop, as the Revd. Martin Dudley performed to the chagrin of the Bishop of London a few years ago.

No, The Very Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, Dean and President of Episcopal Divinity School, and Mally Lloyd, Canon to the Ordinary, married at St Paul's Cathedral in Boston.

The Rt Rev M Thomas Shaw, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, solemnised the marriage.

You really couldn’t get a much higher blessing than that from a bishop in his cathedral.

Or her cathedral.

Such defiance is not only a manifest rejection of the proposed Anglican Covenant; it is something of a slap in the face for the Archbishop of Canterbury who has consistently pleaded for restraint for the sake of the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

There are those who say that this is the logical outcome of Protestantism: once you reject the central authority (Rome), there is no logical end to the plethora of denominational permutations which can emerge from the assertion of the individual conscience over and above Scripture and Church tradition.

But this is to caricature Protestantism: Sola Scriptura was never carte blanche for the believer to treat the Word of God like Hello magazine, or for the believer to make of it what he or she wills. Protestant Christianity was intimately connected with faith in the democratic intellect: that the faith was preached in the first instance to poor, illiterate men – a college made up, for the most part, of ignorant, but inspired fishermen. And it contains a message as well as a method that privileges the humbler human intellects of the world.

But it is not devoid of reason.

The Episcopal Church in the US, like the rest of the Anglican Communion, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman: it is a Divine institution for the purpose of procreation.

But in 2009 the church at its General Convention decided to allow that ‘bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church’.

Of course the Church should be pastoral, and generously sensitive in the performance of that sacred duty. But where the words and actions of a few cause hurt to the 77 million, such that the communion is severely impaired, one begins to see the sense in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions, which was agreed by all jurisdictions in 2004: the democratic intellect must be subject to Scripture, even when it is in tension with tradition.

His Grace is chilled with civil partnerships: if two people of the same gender wish to organise their private affairs in accordance with the provision of the state, that is of no concern to anyone else: civil partnerships belong to Caesar.

And if some religious institutions wish to support such partnerships, we are perhaps at the juncture recently identified by the Pope in his comments on the use of condoms: the Church should do all it can to encourage all steps towards moral responsibility, and it cannot do that be alienating and excluding.

But when does a blessing become a marriage?

The Revd Peter Ould has performed an autopsy on the liturgy used in this service, and determined that it is indeed a marriage ceremony. Like that presided over by the Revd. Martin Dudley in London, the Rt Rev M Thomas Shaw has been content to amend the Prayer Book to accommodate the same-sex union.

And so all references to procreation have been excised.

While this may be nothing new in the US, it illustrates that The Episcopal Church has departed from the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and the orthodox teaching of the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

In Genesis 2, God says: “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a help mett for him’ (v18). It continues: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage, which is both heterosexual and monogamous. This precludes homosexuality (Exod 22:19; Lev 18:22f) and Lesbianism (cf Rom 1:26f). Some heterosexual unions are also prohibited (Lev 18:9-17; 20:11-21; Deut 22:30; 27:20-23). Bigamy, though evident in the OT, is not ideal (Lev 18:18; Deut 17:17), being portrayed negatively (Gen 16:4ff; 21:10) or deemed problematic (Deut 21:15-17).

Three purposes for marriage can be identified out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before God, which is explicitly confirmed by Jesus when he states that marriage is that which ‘God hath joined together’ (Mt 19:6); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. Jesus refers to being ‘yoked together’ (Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9), the Greek term meaning a profound union. The marriage covenant was designed by God to last until at least one of the spouses dies (Rom 7:2), though it could be severed by divorce.

This is the unequivocal Anglican position, as stated in the Book of Common Prayer.

Which, unlike in the US, cannot be amended other than by an Act of Parliament.

And Parliament is very sensitive indeed to the will of the majority.

And the Coalition have one or two things rather more pressing than to attempt to take on the Established Church at this particular juncture.

And the Established Church also has one or two things more pressing which might disincline it from tackling a further highly divisive issue.

But it will come.

62 Comments:

Blogger Arden Forester said...

I thought at one time the Episcopal Church in the USA had a Trojan horse in its midst. Now it appears that the whole of Animal Farm has gone Trojan.

The bishop in your picture looks supremely self-satisfied. He should know that God will not be mocked. I think they all believe that they can forge an ecclesial body to suit their own whims and desires as the prevailing wind dictates.

This is not a marriage. It may be a union or a liaison, but it is not a marriage. It is perversely unsacramental. I do not wish these two women from being together if they want to be. But it is not the understanding of the whole Church that this is correct. They represent a small minority of doctrinal gainsayers.

6 January 2011 at 10:16  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Maybe the problem lies in the two differing sects of the Anglican church. Much better in my eyes to remove the sinner who glorifies in sin from the church.

6 January 2011 at 10:26  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

The aforementioned 'marriage' ceremony within the walls of an American Episcopalian church is hardly surprising, given the history of certain characters within that branch of the Anglican Communion. It typifies the zeitgeist and the determination by some so-called Christians, whose methodoloy is to try to redefine those plain scriptural precepts that don't fit in with their own unbiblical lifestyle choices. In my book, that is hypocrisy writ large. All the more reason to present the American Epicopalian churches and dioceses with a choice..

6 January 2011 at 10:55  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Certain godless persons seem to have manoeuvred their way into positions of authority, changing the grace of God into license for immorality. Sanctioning same-sex unions is the dubious prerogative of the State. The Church should put its own house in order, and only encourage lifestyles that are consistent with biblical teaching.

1 Corinthians 5 9-11
 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Christian doctrine should never be modified to suit popular opinion or under pressure from the State. The Bible is the only absolute standard we can use to recognise false teaching and deal with it.

6 January 2011 at 11:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boring. Why can't conservative Christians focus on things with real impact rather than 'shock horror' stories more worthy of the Daily Mail. We need conservative approaches pushed in the face of secularism and Islamism. Banging on about how 'certain types of Christians are not really Christian' is a tune 1000 years old.

6 January 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

This is all a great big yawn.

The word 'church' as used in the New Testament in no way corresponds to its application to the Anglican 'Church' or to the 'Church' of England, or to any denominational or regional organisation, no matter how it is accompanied by old books, liturgies, vestments, clergy, etc.

It is therefore completely pointless to cite passages from the scriptures to support or oppose what is done in and by these organisations. That's just cherry picking: opting to use the Bible when it suits, and to ignore it when it doesn't.

Personally, I don't think there should be female clergy -- but I don't think there should be male clergy either. I don't think there should be female bishops -- but I don't think there should be bishops. I don't think there should be gay marriage services -- but I don't think there should be any services.

These corrupt organisations, which have arrogated to themselves some of the language and beliefs of biblical Christianity while ignoring the rest, should be disavowed by genuine Christians.

Just as the Conservative Party should be disavowed by genuine conservatives.

6 January 2011 at 11:35  
Anonymous UK Fred said...

Your Grace, I am reminded of the video you posted about Prime Minister Jim Hacker having to choose a bishop for Bury St Edmonds.

More seriously, how can anyone Christian remain in communion with a so-called church which blesses same sex unions. 50 years ago these were illegal in Britain, and what will we be discussing in a further 50 years? Shall we have moved on from ignoring Leviticus 18:22 to Leviticus 18:23? And before anyone says that "This is ridiculous" remember that 50 years ago Christians would have said the same about what has just happened.

6 January 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger Doorkeeper said...

Your Grace, thank you for your post, it being more moderate than some I have seen on this very subject.

Like yourself, I am chilled about civil partnerships - they are 'a good thing' and were much overdue. I am happy for gay and lesbian people to live in happy and faithful partnerships with each other. I might even, after a bit of thought, be content to see a blessing of a civil partnership as we do with civil marriages (not sure but I'd consider it.) But Marriage is Marriage - it is a different beast as you have described above.

The thing that really bothers me is the effect that news of the ceremony described above will have on the majority of the good and faithful Christians I see in the pews around me. They will be bothered by it. It will upset them because it overturns what they believe is 'right'. It will become a stumbling block.

It reminds me that, were it not for that lot across the pond, we would not need the Anglican Covenant (or nuclear weapons, probably.)

6 January 2011 at 13:53  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Certainly (as UK Fred, etc.) it is necessary to remember that things will have changed radically in 50 years ... but which way? Tony Blair and others would say homosexuality (even in the RC Church) will be so much accepted that we will marvel at the force with which some reject it now. Or, the whole thing could be so exposed as to cause wonder as to how we ever tolerated it at all; yes, even future politicians may awake to the madness we live under, at the moment ...

6 January 2011 at 13:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

ECUSA as the Episcopal Church in the US denotes itself is a marginal church, a fringe group of affluent liberals. Its only relevance to the C of E was that it paid for the conferences, junkets and funding the overseas dioceses that Canterbury could no longer sustain.

As Americans they like to feel they can buy whatever they pay for, and resent any preacher using whips to drive them from the temple.

ECUSA has developed into a Neo-Pagan Church in a land where churches are simply repositories of tax-exempt business interests. There is no reason to treat ECUSA with anything other than ribald amusement and scornful contempt.

I should think that at Titus 19 or Virtue Online they are seething, but Ridicule is the only answer when Caligula makes his horse a Consul.

6 January 2011 at 14:48  
Anonymous postergirl said...

We can bless anything we like - it doesn't mean that God will.

6 January 2011 at 15:56  
Anonymous not a machine said...

mmmmm I rather thought this issue had been resolved fully . I cannot object to the legal ordering of ones life in the term of "civil partnership " if one has rejected the teaching of the bible , this provison has been available for some time now for both hetero and homosexual couples . However where I think it is wrong that a couple wishing to define there lives according to the bible , can only be termed as "marriage" . Given that knock and the door shall open , is very different to do as you like , for the church to not become hypocyritical it must reserve and preserve the rites of marriage as being somthing for its flock. we cannot claim any elite advantage , but we should not give way to it being the same sort of understanding as those who dont want the teachings of the bible .

You may think I have missed christian homosexual people where the fires burn the most , well the church is for all , but not all of actions fullfill the teaching .
The traditonal view is abstenance as having the right approach to keep communion , but this leaves monogamous homosexual couples at somthing of a loss .
Being accused of lacking compassion for these couples is perhaps what the church is getting hung up about . It may well seem to be harsh , but how can you uphold marriage and family and yet wish to endow the same quality to somthing that is spiritually different , and so it unravels into liberal equality and confusion.
The greater value of the quality of marriage to the partners also risks being lost as the attempt to remove the predujice progresses. We have ordained chemistry instead of stately underpinning of life ordered as god intended.

compassion envoked for a prejudice must not undermine a purpose the church was founded upon and has no comparison in secular life .

6 January 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Wise words, esp on the matter of civil union vs church marriage.

OS has made some wise and less-wise decisions during his years, but his decision in 1988 to depart the Episcopal Church was one of the wise ones.

He looks back longingly upon the liturgy that the first Archbishop Cranmer carefully assembled, and occasionally sneaks into the rear pew for a service; but alas, there is no place for him, other than as a tourist.

6 January 2011 at 16:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The Mans dressed for a pantomime, what do you expect, politicians and clergy need a good thrashing, they have conned decent honest folk for centuries with a big lie that gives them the illusion of power.

These need an awakening!

6 January 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

The reasons for matrimony are not "(i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union." That is only two reasons. The three are (i) to avoid fornication (ii) the procreation of children and (iii) lifelong companionship.

(@Anabaptist:
"Personally, I don't think ... but I don't think ... I don't think ... but I don't think ... I don't think ... but I don't think, etc etc."
Yawn.)

6 January 2011 at 17:14  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr L B Sambo:

'(@Anabaptist:
"Personally, I don't think ... but I don't think ... I don't think ... but I don't think ... I don't think ... but I don't think, etc etc."
Yawn.)'


Let me get this straight, Mr LBS: you think I should smarten up my rhetorical style to keep you interested? I would prefer it if you actually read and engaged with my arguments. But it seems being snarky about my writing style is easier and takes rather less brain power.

6 January 2011 at 17:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's the bloke thats been tangoed in the middle ?

6 January 2011 at 17:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are those who say that this is the logical outcome of Protestantism: once you reject the central authority (Rome), there is no logical end to the plethora of denominational permutations which can emerge from the assertion of the individual conscience over and above Scripture and Church tradition.

But this is to caricature Protestantism: Sola Scriptura was never carte blanche for the believer to treat the Word of God like Hello magazine, or for the believer to make of it what he or she wills."

I love you dearly, Cranmer, but you are exactly wrong on this matter: you're disbelieving the evidence of your senses. Were the above assertion true, we wouldn't be seeing lesbian clerics marrying.

1) Once you reject the authority of the original church--and by this I mean Christianity as it was before the Catholic-Orthodox schism in 1054 AD--you are assured of nothing less than a proliferation of churches. There are at least 22,000 Protestant sects in the United States.

2) Given our fallen nature, the logical end of Sola Scriptura can only be interpreting the Bible according to our own personal prejudices and tastes.

6 January 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger bwims said...

I believe it was in an episode of "Yes (Prime) Minister", when a new bishop was being chosen, that Sir Humphrey said that in the CofE a belief in God was optional.

Certainly seems the case nowadays...

6 January 2011 at 19:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Archbishop,

When one's church stops blessing ships, shops and slaughter houses;

When one's church stops declaring dead vicars and nuns Saints;

When one's church stops employing Exorcists and other Magicians;

When one's church stops pretending a largely make believe and now fairy-tailed rabbi from the 1st Century is God Almighty;

Perhaps you will have a point.

But, quite unusually, today you don't. A church can bless anything it wishes. It is upto secular society to decide what constitutes a lawful marriage, civil partnership or other such relationship. Render unto Caesar etc.

6 January 2011 at 19:13  
Anonymous anton said...

Do not believe or listen to anything anonymous has written because anonymous doesn't exist......just a fairy tale from the 21st century.

6 January 2011 at 20:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous is a glitch in The Matrix

6 January 2011 at 20:18  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

But this is to caricature Protestantism: Sola Scriptura was never carte blanche for the believer to treat the Word of God like Hello magazine.

I agree, however we would seem to have many problems. I hope the following may assist the reader in at least partly understanding why we have them, and what can be done about them.

The CofE was without doubt a vitally important political construct, especially in terms of progressing the political, scientific, and social development of both Europe, and so also The New World.

However in many more religious or mystical ways the CofE is only superficially different from The RCC, and has never been truly free of its influence.

Please read carefully

What ALL, repeat ALL established religions have very much in common with each other, is a TOP DOWN corporate structure of command and control.

Corrupting the official opposition from Islamism to Judaism, all the way to Mormonism and Baptism, became the goal of The Jesuit orders as far back as approximately 500 years ago, so I have been told.

Of course I can only take the word of people like Eric Jon Phelps, and ex jesuit priests such as Alberto Rivera on this one, as I was not actually paying much attention to these types of matters at the time.

It would appear that all Protestantism's major competitor had to do, was rot the little fishes greedy heads, and their whole bodies swiftly went the same way.

This as evidenced in many ways, including biblical texts, most notably in Revelation 5 6 and 17.

Protestantism at it's most pure level, which unfortunately is a fair distance from The CofE, cannot be so easily corrupted as it is based on the idea of finding ones own way to the truth, by actually reading a Bible.

This greatly assisted by being allowed to have access to one, written in a language that the common people can actually understand, and so free from the corrupting interference of priests, and therefore the priest-hoods almost infinitely powerful universally spread, multi-national corporation, that empowers them.

As a general rule:

When things don't make logical sense. When dark forces are self-evidently at play. When pain, and frustration are everywhere, while nobody seems to be able to find an answer, however hard they may seem to be trying to do so, like for example before and during World Wars, then my advice would be, to strongly suspect SUBVERSION at the highest possible level.

You may not always be perfectly correct, but you will not be far wrong.

6 January 2011 at 20:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And another thing...

Unless we genuinely believe that God commands us to execute, preferably by Iranian style stoning, those of our neighbours who eat shellfish and pigs we are on rather flimsy and hypocritical theological ground condemning two frumpy middle aged lesbians getting hitched. So far as I can recollect, the Bible is completely silent on our sapphic sisters. Did God, rather like Queen Victoria, think lesbianism did not exist ? Does 'he' now ? Is God's value system and judgment alone in the universe in being stuck in aspic ?

6 January 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

@Anabaptist.
I wasn't commenting on any rhetorical style, merely answering your remark that "all this is a great big yawn" - your collected opinions being another one.

6 January 2011 at 22:38  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

"There are those who say that this is the logical outcome of Protestantism: once you reject the central authority (Rome), there is no logical end to the plethora of denominational permutations which can emerge from the assertion of the individual conscience over and above Scripture and Church tradition."

Indeed!

Like women priests and bishops it goes against traditional and theological Christian understandings about God's plan for men and women and for the leadership of His Church.
These are not 'equal opportunity' or 'diversity' issues.

"His Grace is chilled with civil partnerships ... civil
partnerships belong to Caesar."

Chilled isn't a word I'd use but I do take the point you make about Caesar.

Anything is 'acceptable' in a godless secular society if it does 'no harm'. However, some things hit at the very roots of society - like contraception, IVF, divorce, adultury, abortion, and euthanasia. They cause us all harm.

Goodness, I do sound like a very old conservative!

And one slightly 'controversial' observation, if I may. Is one of the reasons we hate Islam that they have very clear laws about proper conduct? Do they hold a mirror up to the 'civilised' west?

Lest anyone thinks I agree with Islam's understanding of God and the path to salvation, I do not. Neither do I agree with their approach to punishment when laws are broken or apostasy. Nor do I agree with militant, terrorist fundamentalism.

God gave us free will - Pray God we begin to understand the Love and Truth behind His Commandments.

6 January 2011 at 22:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for clarifying that homosexuality is wrong because of Genesis etc. Clearly the Genesis creation story is a literal historical account and the Pentateuchal laws are meant to be applied today.

This never gets old, does it?

6 January 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger Peter Palladas said...

Where on earth did he get that hat?

7 January 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger Peter Palladas said...

When two women can have sexual intercourse resulting in the conception of a child, then and only then could one speak of 'lesbian marriage'. That being a contradiction in terms so is this nonsense.

7 January 2011 at 00:20  
Blogger Tambourine Man said...

Bin thinkin ... lots of noise ... need some rest ... some peace ..

"I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,"

And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

"I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',"

It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

7 January 2011 at 00:26  
Blogger Tambourine Man said...

Jus thought ... all you christians ... ever thought wh
at it means to play songs bac' ta bac'?

It go's:

beginnin' ta end
Then end ta' beginin'
Then beginin' ta' end.

its a thought .... may jus' try it ...

7 January 2011 at 00:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr EveryMAN (Sorry, you're NOT)

"There are those who say that this is the logical outcome of Protestantism (When has this been said, show me) : once you reject the central authority (Rome..KING OF CULTS), there is no logical end to the plethora of denominational permutations which can emerge from the assertion of the individual conscience over and above Scripture and Church tradition.(You are fluent in Pure Catholicism??)"

Indeed! (Not So)

Like women priests and bishops it goes against traditional and theological Christian understandings about God's plan for men and women and for the leadership of His Church.(What about Celibacy then?)
These are not 'equal opportunity' or 'diversity' issues. (They most certainly are not!)

"His Grace is chilled with civil partnerships ... civil
partnerships belong to Caesar."

Chilled isn't a word I'd use but I do take the point you make about Caesar.

Anything is 'acceptable' in a godless secular society if it does 'no harm'. However, some things hit at the very roots of society - like contraception, IVF, divorce, adultury, abortion, and euthanasia. They cause us all harm.(Ah..The Roman Catholic Social Gospel, that all men can unite behind..I getcha!!)

Goodness, I do sound like a very old conservative! (You sound like nothing of the sort, except a crafty old Papist!!)

And one slightly 'controversial' observation, if I may. (Please do!) Is one of the reasons we hate Islam that they have very clear laws about proper conduct? ( ER, EM..I believe those who adhere to God's Word have no need to look to the laws and conduct of false religion such as Islam or Catholicism) Do they hold a mirror up to the 'civilised' west? (For hypocrisy but not for barbaric conduct and the ideal of 'convert or die' like both stated false religions, two sides of one coin)!)

Lest anyone thinks I agree with Islam's understanding of God and the path to salvation, (Did not the Pope state all roads lead to Rome??)I do not. Neither do I agree with their approach to punishment when laws are broken or apostasy (I thought you were a Papist..RC Church History?). Nor do I agree with militant, terrorist fundamentalism.( Thankful Am I)

God gave us free will (He certainly did and which you continue to use in rejecting the FULL sufficiency in Christ Alone)- Pray God we begin to understand the Love and Truth behind His Commandments.(And if You did understand, would it make a difference for you to leave Rome).

YKWIA

7 January 2011 at 10:16  
Anonymous Martin form the North said...

Dear Anonymous,

The whole issue of women priests is part of a cultural theme ratehr than a scriptural one.

To put it simply, if Jesus were to assume mortal coil today, he would recruit followers such as ex-criminals, immigrants, bankers, unemployed, etc., and - yes - even WOMEN!

By taking a cross section of the society that represents the culture, the message will get across pretty much as it did in Roman Palestine a couple of thosand years ago when Jesus was pretty cute in understanding the male, family head, dominated culture of the time.

The celibacy issue has nothing to do with scripture either. It was brought in to prevent inheritances from being distributed by priests thereby keeping the wealth inside the church. Until the Renaissance, even Popes use to marry.

7 January 2011 at 12:50  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

@Mr LB Sambo

Once again, no attempt to engage with the arguments that underlie my boring opinions.

7 January 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger Crusader said...

Anonymous said...
7 January 2011 10:16

Why hello kingofetc wondered when you'd return to vent your poison on Catholism.

Mr EveryMAN

(You sound like nothing of the sort, except a crafty old Papist!!)

No-thing craft about ME. I state MY case openly. Do you? What church do belong to? No reply so far.

(I thought you were a Papist..RC Church History?)

FIRST and LAST I am a Christian.

(Did not the Pope state all roads lead to Rome??)

Read Pope John Paul II and Pope Benefict XV1 and the Catholic Catechism.

(What about Celibacy then?)

Not a doctrine or a dogma. A freely given vow to chastity based on scripture.

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it."
Matthew 19:12

YKWIA
You Know Who I Am?
I certainly do! Do you?

So says, Mr Eman ...

7 January 2011 at 14:34  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

IPSE VENENA BIBAS!

7 January 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Doorkeeper
6 Jan 13:51

You're right it will bother the good and the faithful. And it blurs and confuses the meaning of the word marriage which is something between a male and a female only. A bonding of mind body and spirit between lesbians can never be and between homosexual men is a faulty union.

On a practical level, the word marriage is used universally to mean the joining of a male part into a female part. In technical instructions “marry the two together” means for someone to insert the male part into the female to enable something to function. How can two females or two males marry up?

I think the compromise would be a blessing of the union although that is still at odds with what it
says in the Bible.

7 January 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why hello kingofetc wondered when you'd return to vent your poison on Catholism.(I never left!but since when is the TRUTH poison?)
Mr EveryMAN
(You sound like nothing of the sort, except a crafty old Papist!!)
No-thing craft about ME. I state MY case openly. (When and in/through which apparition. Is your name LEGION?) Do you? (ALWAYS. As the comment section on this blog is full of) What church do belong to? (???) No reply so far. (The Body of Christ..or can you not see and understand)
(I thought you were a Papist..RC Church History?)
FIRST and LAST I am a Christian.( No Catholic can ever be a Follower or Disciple of Christ..Because we do not and cannot know Him as preached through Catholic Dogma. This is Another Christ!)
(Did not the Pope state all roads lead to Rome??)
Read Pope John Paul II and Pope Benefict XV1 and the Catholic Catechism. (Words, Words, Words. Do not actions speak louder. Why Did/Do they therefore hold masses with Hindu, Sikh, Imam, Witchdoctors etc in joint attendance at Rome's bidding and say praises to THEIR god's?)
(What about Celibacy then?)
Not a doctrine or a dogma. A freely given vow to chastity based on scripture. (Even Erasmus attacked this false doctrine enforced on the Priesthood and Nuns as unbiblical? or was one of our greatest scholars a Heretic???)
Matthew 19:12 (Where did Christ state this was a position relating to Priests (No such thing in new testament) or Elders/Bishops/Deacons) see below a rebuttal of twisting scripture)
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
1 Timothy 3:1-5 advice to Bishops who MUST be married!
1 Timothy 3 8-13 advice to Deacons who MUST be married!

So if THIS is what God expects of His leaders in His church, why does Catholicism then do otherwise?

YKWIA
You Know Who I Am? (You are indeed good with abreviations but so am I with conundrums. SriZals/Liars(SZ)
I certainly do! (How easier could I have made it for you?) Do you? (My name is written in heaven in the Lambs book of life in His Blood!. Is your's, Legion??

So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

7 January 2011 at 18:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Chancing For More

A Reply.

Crux sacra sit mihi lux. Non draco sit mihi dux.

May the Holy Cross be my light. Let not the dragon be my guide!!!!

AMEN

So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

7 January 2011 at 18:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Most High God, through the Holy Spirit. A question?

Luke 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

How does this refer to this blog and how would the author answer verse's 8 to 9 to the owner of the vineyard?

7 January 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in praelio.
Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus,
supplices deprecamur.
Tuque princeps militiae caelestis,
Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen

7 January 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

srizals

I do not know what is in your heart and I offer these observations in sincerity and truth.

You have given names of God - in Islam there are 99 names.

Behind each name a series of rituals and recitals are given to obtain earthly wealth, earthly honour, earthly revenge and earthly glory.

This not the way of God - read the Temptations of Jesus in the desert when Satan offered Him such things.
His reply: "Get thee behind me Satan."

The names themselves are suggestive of the attributes of God. The outcome of recitals and rituals are not.

Satan is the great deceiver who knows scripture and seeks to pervert it to his own ends by ensnaring men into the worship of himself.

AL-MALIK
The Sovereign
"If read abundantly each day After Zawaal, the reader will be given abundant wealth... Insha-Allah"

AL-AZIZ
The Mighty
"Anyone who say this name 40 times each day for forty days. Allah will grant him honour and self-sufficiency. If read 41 times daily with constancy, the reades will become mighty if he is treated with dishonour."

AL-JABBÂR
The Over Powering Lord
"Anyone who says this Ism 226 times each morning and each evening will be safeguarded against the oppression to tyrants and depots. If anyone engraves it on a silver ring and wears it. His awe and magnificence will become inborn in the heart of people... Insha-Allah."

AL-MUTAKABBIR
The Self-Glorious
"The constant reciter of this beautiful name will be granted honour and greatness. If read continually before any task, it will be accomplished... Insha-Allah."

AL-GHAFFÂR
Exceedingly Forgiving
"Anyone who say this name 40 times each day for forty days. Allah will grant him honour and self-suffiiciency. If read 41times daily with constancy, the reader will become self-sufficient and will attain honour if he treated with dishonour."

I could go on but by now you will have got the point.

In the language of Muhammed there are but three names of God:

Allāh al-ʼab (الله الأب) - God the Father,
Allāh al-ibn (الله الابن) - God the Son,
Allāh al-rūḥ al-quds (الله الروح القدس)- God the Holy Spirit

8 January 2011 at 00:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell me if you see an inconsistency here...

"the democratic intellect must be subject to Scripture, even when it is in tension with tradition."

"The marriage covenant was designed by God to last until at least one of the spouses dies (Rom 7:2), though it could be severed by divorce."

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Lk 16:18

HOW IS DIVORCE EVEN ALLOWED?

8 January 2011 at 05:47  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, "

Come off it Cranny. Next you'll be saying the universe is only 6,000 years old.

8 January 2011 at 07:53  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

KINGOFHIGHCS
7 January 2011 18:18

You asked me to name myself.

My Baptism name, chosen by my parents, is:

Peter -
Kephas or Cephas "stone" in Aramaic.

In Latin "Petra", from the Greek πέτρος (Petros)"stone" or "rock".

My Confirmation name, chosen by me, is:

"Christopher"
'Cristofer' in Latin
'Cristofõm' from 'Cristo'-'fom', meaning Christ and to carry.

My surname is derived from my Jewish geneology and is private.

As for 'Legion', as a young man I enrolled in the 'Legion of Mary', swearing loyalty to her Son and asking for her protection and assistance in serving Him.

"Mystery man"

8 January 2011 at 09:44  
Blogger srizals said...

An anonymously annoying has boldly accused me to be a liar.

If he doesn't retract his words or explicitly points where my lies are, he would be considered as a cowardly anonymous king! Is this the troll trying to seek fame in the internet?

I thought the English Viking has shown to us who you really are. Don't make me come for you.

8 January 2011 at 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With respect, Your Grace, there is a certain inconsistency with the goals of matrimony as laid down in the BCP and how it's fleshed out in reality among Christians.

The marriage liturgy you so beautifully arranged in 1549 was very modern indeed and the first Christian marriage service to list in its preface 'mutual society' as one of the goals for matrimony (together with the traditional avoiding fornication and perpertuating the human race).

You were onto something, Your Grace, as 'mutual society' is really the only real purpose of any human coupling. This explains why the marriage of a woman 'no longer of child-bearing years' or of an infertile man is still considered valid and meets with no adverse comment from the matrimonial purists.(But hang on, it's still between a man and a woman so that makes it ok...?).

The rates of extra-marital sexual activity which occur, even in Christian marriages, suggest that fornication is not being avoided but actively pursued by the heterosexual majority whenever they feel the need. (But that's probably ok too because it's normal intercourse mostly between a man and a woman...even if technically adultery).

We now turn to two mature American women - both practising Christians - who have found 'mutual society' in each other and are fortunate to live in a coutry where both church and state will bless their commitment, rather than marginalise or ostracise them.

For the life of me, I can't see any objection to the church and/or state wishing them well in their shared lives. That is, after all, the essence of the marriage service. Reeling off culturally specific OT/NT quotes simply shows how exegetically simplistic Anglican conservatives are becoming. This Biblically fundamentalist approach is only ever taken on sexual morality. O for such adherence to the Word of God when it comes to social justice, the defence of the oppressed, economic equity, the rights of strangers in our midst and the integrity of creation!

We are an 'ecclecial community' liberated from the autocratic and despotic rule of an Italian celibate by the circumstances surrounding a royal divorce. We, of all Christians, should refrain from fetishising marriage and be truly open-hearted enough to extend its affirming boundaries to the homosexual minority.

We should equip those of good will through prayer and sacrament to build healthy and enduring relationships with those whom they are psycho-sexually attached and committed. The church and state will in turn be enriched and blessed.

8 January 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger srizals said...

As for gay and lesbian marriages, I totally 'support' their freedom to do whatever they will. Just don't let any Muslims copy your type of holy matrimony. In fact, I would strongly encourage all Westerners to do the same and forget about the natural way of men and women, babies and children. We don't need them in the highly civilised West. And hopefully in 50-100 years to come, we would not have any gay genes surviving and being passed on to the new generations mysteriously. Hopefully.

8 January 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger Tambourine Man said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 January 2011 at 16:24  
Anonymous len said...

I cannot understand why anyone purporting to be a Christian can purposely flaunt their disrespect of Gods Word for all the World to see!.

Those in a leadership position are supposed to set an example , what sort of example are these people setting?.The Bible speaks of these things in the last days,it is very sad that these words are addressed to Christians

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons".
( 1 Timothy 4:1)

8 January 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

One of the great deceptions of modern times, and an approaching victory for the adversary, is the confusion, corruption and perversion of the word LOVE - the very essence of God's being.

The richness of Greek and Latin convey the several meanings and nuances of the word, so difficult in the vernacular of distinct and cruder tongues.

Time and space prevent me from
discoursing this at length (some will be pleased to learn). I therefore refer you to the jointly written encyclical of John Paul 11 and Benedict XV1 - the last, incomplete, of the former and the very first of the latter.

DEUS CARITAS EST - 2006
http://www.vatican.va

And another:
CARITAS IN VERITATE - 2009
http://www.vatican.va

'Amor', in ancient and troubled times, less so, in some ways than your own, was used as a secret anagram for 'Roma'. In those times there were clear bodily and obvious threats to the message and people of Christ; today the threat is subtle and for the very soul of mankind.


"He that loves not knows not God: for God is charity."

"Qui non diligit, non novit Deum : quoniam Deus caritas est."
(1 Jn 4:8)

"And we have known and have believed the charity which God has to us. God is charity: and he that abides in charity abides in God, and God in him."

"Et nos cognovimus, et credidimus caritati, quam habet Deus in nobis. Deus caritas est : et qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo."
(1 Jn 4:16)


"God's Servant First"

8 January 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous Oswin said...

It's time to ... ''ooh, shut that door!''

8 January 2011 at 17:30  
Anonymous Ade said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 January 2011 at 22:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chancing for more said

'Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in praelio.
Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus,
supplices deprecamur.
Tuque princeps militiae caelestis,
Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen'

False Worship!
1:9
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

All Christians only EVER call on The Name Of The Lord..EVEN HIS HOLY ANGELS!

YKWIA

9 January 2011 at 14:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Eman
'You asked me to name myself.'(LIES.Where, you name yourself for your own purposes!)
'As for 'Legion', as a young man I enrolled in the 'Legion of Mary', swearing loyalty to her Son and asking for her protection and assistance in serving Him.'
(You serve HER very well and some reward must be due to you for THIS? May The Lord repay you for your work in likewise manner)

YKWIA

9 January 2011 at 19:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Srizals said

An anonymously annoying has boldly accused me to be a liar. (wo culd you b talkn abut)

If he doesn't retract his words or explicitly points where my lies are, he would be considered as a cowardly anonymous king!(he wuld if he culd but he cn't) Is this the troll trying to seek fame in the internet? (wat fame culd he bee sickn)

I thought the English Viking has shown to us who you really are.(u knw thn) Don't make me come for you.(ald a way frum da lickle islend in mealay?)

Wash mi engliash woz as gud as urs?

YKWIA

9 January 2011 at 21:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

;0
;(
;)

YKWIA

9 January 2011 at 21:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YKWIA
9 January 2011 21:39


Three words for you ... Can you guess them?

GFY?

9 January 2011 at 22:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said 9 January 2011 22:40
YKWIA
9 January 2011 21:39


Three words for you ... Can you guess them?

GFY? He Has, He Does, He Will!!!
GFY? ...CHARMING !!!

9 January 2011 at 22:59  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

Stupid cowardly balless anon!

10 January 2011 at 04:07  
Anonymous Nigel A. Goddard BA said...

As a youth, I was intructed by "religious authorities" to despise homosexuality and their practices. Nothing was gained by hurting them and telling them that the very same God who obviously created them was against them. The bible is the inspired word of God but scripture should not be used against gay people and their desire to live normal loving lives with all the benefits of marriage. I am tired of seeing them told to ride at the back of the bus.

1 March 2011 at 18:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older