Covering diocesan convention in L.A. is to come to the party way late. Really, all is probably decided in the first qtr. of the year at the Annual Parish Meeting of All Saints’, Pasadena. This became a decisive reality when St. James’, Newport Beach and others realigned. There ceased to be any counterweight to ASP.
Gotta love those promises made at Lambeth, Dar, etc., etc.
Who’s fooling whom? These people are smarter, more generous, more enabling, more sophisticated, and more…well…just MORE. What’s yet another broken word in the hands of such benevolent and right-thinking people? Give us more lies…we’ll accept them.
I am getting pretty tired of people claiming that resolution B033 from 2006 violates the constitution and canons of the Church because it disriminates against people in committed homosexual relationships.
The national canons say nothing about ordaining people who are involved in sinful actions and are unrepentant of their sin. We should not ordain people who want to bless sinful actions. We should not bless sinful actions.
I would not have any problem with ordaining a person who experiences homosexual attractions if that person remained celibate. It is not the orientation that is at issue here. It is sexual activity outside of marriage (and marriage being defined by the Church as one man, one woman, for life).
“It is sexual activity outside of marriage (and marriage being defined by the Church as one man, one woman, for life).”
Well Brother Snyder. You said what Mark Harris would not allow to be questioned at his blog. On his blog I asked Elizabeth Kaeton and Terry Martin how their actions to ignore the definition of marriage were NOT a violation of their vows to uphold the doctrine of marriage in the BCP. That question has yet to be answered.
You see, it’s OK for violations of vows to occur in the hands of such superior people. If they teach what is not officially sanctioned in the BCP, then it’s OK. Mark Harris wouldn’t post that question…or their answer.
Fakes and frauds run this show. They’ll get the Prayer Book changed to suit their whims and then claim how much they uphold the doctrine of the Church.
Putrid!
They’ll get the Prayer Book changed to suit their whims and then claim how much they uphold the doctrine of the Church.
They can change the prayer book all they want. It’s NOT the Bible. It’s the Bible that they can’t change. They reject its authority because they can’t change it. It’s the Word of God. What else do we need?
[blockquote] I would not have any problem with ordaining a person who experiences homosexual attractions if that person remained celibate. [/blockquote]
Actually, Jeffrey Johns claims to be celibate. But he announces from the hill tops that homosexuality is wonderful and everyone should be practicing it. I have problems with that.
robroy,
If I were a bishop and a person came to me to be ordained as a priest and that person was still living with a woman (not his wife) with whom the aspirant had a sexual relationship, but that the man claimed to be celibate now, I would not let that person become a priest. Jeffery Johns still lives in the same house as his “former” lover. I am not calling him a liar, but the evidence is against him.
This is the problem with TEC. The common operating principle is that as long as our Canons or Convention remain “orthodox” we are doing just fine. If we say we are not advocating SSB and the ordination of practicing homosexuals , life is good. Jeffrey Johns may indeed be a practicing celibate, but his teaching is apostate. Teaching and practice must be united under the authority of scripture.
The reason our church dying (check out the “stats” posts on Stand Firm) is because TEC no longer proclaims a clear Gospel, teaches a plain faith, nor advocates Christian practice.
It all comes down to this: the House of Bishops has betrayed the Church because they refuse to hold each other accountable to the Bible, to the Canons or even to the many, many resolutions they have adopted over the past 40+ years.
Covering diocesan convention in L.A. is to come to the party way late. Really, all is probably decided in the first qtr. of the year at the Annual Parish Meeting of All Saints’, Pasadena. This became a decisive reality when St. James’, Newport Beach and others realigned. There ceased to be any counterweight to ASP.
Likewise this is true for the EC and what will happen at GC09….
Marginalize to the extreme….
Gotta love those promises made at Lambeth, Dar, etc., etc.
Who’s fooling whom? These people are smarter, more generous, more enabling, more sophisticated, and more…well…just MORE. What’s yet another broken word in the hands of such benevolent and right-thinking people? Give us more lies…we’ll accept them.
Snarkiness off – but ready.
Turn it back on.
I am getting pretty tired of people claiming that resolution B033 from 2006 violates the constitution and canons of the Church because it disriminates against people in committed homosexual relationships.
The national canons say nothing about ordaining people who are involved in sinful actions and are unrepentant of their sin. We should not ordain people who want to bless sinful actions. We should not bless sinful actions.
I would not have any problem with ordaining a person who experiences homosexual attractions if that person remained celibate. It is not the orientation that is at issue here. It is sexual activity outside of marriage (and marriage being defined by the Church as one man, one woman, for life).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“It is sexual activity outside of marriage (and marriage being defined by the Church as one man, one woman, for life).”
Well Brother Snyder. You said what Mark Harris would not allow to be questioned at his blog. On his blog I asked Elizabeth Kaeton and Terry Martin how their actions to ignore the definition of marriage were NOT a violation of their vows to uphold the doctrine of marriage in the BCP. That question has yet to be answered.
You see, it’s OK for violations of vows to occur in the hands of such superior people. If they teach what is not officially sanctioned in the BCP, then it’s OK. Mark Harris wouldn’t post that question…or their answer.
Fakes and frauds run this show. They’ll get the Prayer Book changed to suit their whims and then claim how much they uphold the doctrine of the Church.
Putrid!
They can change the prayer book all they want. It’s NOT the Bible. It’s the Bible that they can’t change. They reject its authority because they can’t change it. It’s the Word of God. What else do we need?
[blockquote] I would not have any problem with ordaining a person who experiences homosexual attractions if that person remained celibate. [/blockquote]
Actually, Jeffrey Johns claims to be celibate. But he announces from the hill tops that homosexuality is wonderful and everyone should be practicing it. I have problems with that.
robroy,
If I were a bishop and a person came to me to be ordained as a priest and that person was still living with a woman (not his wife) with whom the aspirant had a sexual relationship, but that the man claimed to be celibate now, I would not let that person become a priest. Jeffery Johns still lives in the same house as his “former” lover. I am not calling him a liar, but the evidence is against him.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
This is the problem with TEC. The common operating principle is that as long as our Canons or Convention remain “orthodox” we are doing just fine. If we say we are not advocating SSB and the ordination of practicing homosexuals , life is good. Jeffrey Johns may indeed be a practicing celibate, but his teaching is apostate. Teaching and practice must be united under the authority of scripture.
The reason our church dying (check out the “stats” posts on Stand Firm) is because TEC no longer proclaims a clear Gospel, teaches a plain faith, nor advocates Christian practice.
It won’t be just the resolutions that will be of interest at this year’s convention … stay tuned!
It all comes down to this: the House of Bishops has betrayed the Church because they refuse to hold each other accountable to the Bible, to the Canons or even to the many, many resolutions they have adopted over the past 40+ years.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
[i] Inappropriate comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Susan Russell, I’ve read them, and aside from the resolution regarding B.033, I don’t see much to talk about. Rather boring, actually.