Unlike some rites for blessing same-sex couples, the rite from Massachusetts repeatedly invoked the language and theology of marriage, occasionally revising the language of the Book of Common Prayer (1979).
“We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of these women in Holy Matrimony,” said the liturgy authorized and celebrated by Bishop Shaw. “Holy Scripture tells us that all love is from God, and the commitment of marriage signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and the Church.”
The rite also invoked marriage with a reading from the opinion by Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health.
Ahhh, Massachusetts, highest per capita state debt, second only to California, a goverernor who wants a graduated income tax and in-state tuition for illegal aliens, a place where illegals can get full SSI, SSDI and any other welfare socialist program within weeks of landing here, the home of Aunt Zetuni. Cloward and Piven got everyone here to drink the cool aid.
Now we have SSM in TEC, who could be surprised. How is that “working for change within” going? Sorry, I don’t see much good change, they don’t want to hear my idea of change. My ultra-left liberal priest actually called himself a conservative, rather like ABC who rewrites his message to suit whomever is his audience. Goodbye TEC.
Hear the sound of criticism, or any response, from Canterbury? Ha. Neither do I.
Blasphemous and bankrupt in all categories.
For what little it is worth, I think I am coming to the point where I believe that the current crisis of the Episcopal/Anglican church (if such a thing exists) is the responsibility of the laity. For as long as I can remember, we have given our leaders access to wealth and power with no doctrinal strings or expectations attached. We have never even insisted that they make clear when they are speaking for themselves or for the church. Nor have we done anything–other than roll our eyes, shrug or drift away–when they have made public assertions as leaders which were clearly outside or contrary to our catechism. Nor have we exercised such responsibility with ourselves.
Might have been a good idea(ie, for TLC) to exercise restraint and not give Shaw this sound byte. I think he likes those.
Interesting:
“Marriage is a vital social institution,†Justice Marshall wrote. “The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. … Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.â€
What’s the point of using civil language to justify this “Christian” act? Defensive, are we? Protesteth too much?
Won’t catch me ever setting foot in St. Paul’s again, unless it’s been reconsecrated.
Plus, I thought all services were supposed to be funneled through the SLCM. I didn’t realize any priest or bishop could simply “make up” their own services, and/or change the pronouns in the existing ones.
Oh, I forgot–we can violate all the rubrics in the name of “prophecy”…
Naturally, naturally…all naturally (in a purely Pauline understanding).