Besides being theologically ill-informed, shallow and offensive her comments were also stupid. Does she have no sense of tact, or consideration of ecumenism at all? Other Christians than just members of the TEC read her words and she IS the Presiding Bishop of TEC. What a shame she was chosen as PB. The issue of WO’s ordination aside, surely there are other women Bishops who are appalled by her words. I can’t imagine Geralyn Wolf (sp), for instance, being copacetic (sp) with such a remark.

Given Bishop Wolf’s personal history, I suspect that she’s the only one who might have been.

FenelonSpoke: “The issue of WO’s ordination aside, surely there are other women Bishops who are appalled by her words.”

In a sense I agree with you. It’s a shame that the sex of the speaker *must* be brought up when critiquing the speaker’s speech. But the issue of WO and the fact that she’s a woman has got to be brought up when criticizing her remarks simply because WO is unbiblical and invalid.

It’s irrelevant whether other bishopesses disagree with the PBess because there shouldn’t be priestesses, much less bishopesses.

Pax.

Mr. Johnson, is that supposed to mean that Ms. Geralyn Wolf would be in agreement with Ms. Schori-Jefferts?

Either way, by in essence denying that God wants individuals to be saved – and also that He is ABOVE US, not needing us for anything whatsoever but wanting relationships with us – Ms. Schori-Jefferts has denied some of the deepest, most primal parts of Christianity, period!!!

Truly, I’d far rather not belong to any church whatsoever than tolerate anything like this being preached in my presence!!

I don’t know the history of women Bishops in TEC, but ANY Christian who takes seriously the concept of Jesus as Lord should be appalled. I know some Episcopal women priests who would be, and you can bet anglicat-whom I don’t know-but like her writings, is.

If ACNA wants to survive in the long run, it MUST deal with heresies like “women’s ordination” – and renounce them completely!! As long as they don’t, that organization’s prospects are no better than those it proposes to replace…

What Chris meant, I think, is, that Geralyn Wolf would be appalled by KJS words.

Time for me to check out of this thread. :^)

What do you expect when you send a Katie in to do a man’s job?

Correct. Geralyn Wolf is probably the only of TEO’s female pointy hats who would strenuously disagree with Mrs. Schori.

OK – because somebody said he couldn’t imagine Ms. Wolf being copacetic to (i.e., very satisfied with) Ms. Schori’s stand and then Mr. Johnson said “she was the only one who might have been.” – that sounded as if he was saying that Ms. Wolf would be ON Ms. Schori’s side, which I just can’t see as happening (she’s the only bishopess anywhere who apparently has something of a head upon her shoulders).

Thanks for the clarification!

Sasha: “If ACNA wants to survive in the long run, it MUST deal with heresies like “women’s ordination” – and renounce them completely!! As long as they don’t, that organization’s prospects are no better than those it proposes to replace…”

That’s what Bishop Wantland of ACNA also said when he was interviewed:

I queried retired Eau Claire, Wis., Bishop William Wantland, an old friend and an ardent opponent of ordaining women. He reminded me that 22 of the ACNA’s 28 dioceses do not allow female priests. It’s a system known as “dual integrity,” dioceses that differ on a question where Scripture can be read both ways agree to respect and live with each other’s views.

I asked him if he wanted the ACNA to eventually outlaw ordaining women entirely.

“Of course. That’s our mission,” he said. “Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. The priest at the altar is an icon of Christ. What image is that if the person at the altar is a woman? It’s a lesbian relationship.”

Christopher Johnson: “Dr. Mark Thompson, the Dean of Sydney, Australia’s Moore College, slaps a figure-four leg lock on Mrs. Schori”

I’m sure that Dr. Mark Thompson would be pleased by that mental graphic. Nevertheless, if I read this article correctly, Dr. Mark Thompson is also opposed to women’s ordination.

Does she have no sense of tact, or consideration of ecumenism at all?

She has demonstrated no interest in ecumenical relations, which involve an ability to engage in conversation. Her conversations are monologues. Certainly she has shown no interest in relating to those of a more traditional theology.

“Perhaps more time should have been given to considering how idolatrous is an institution which demands loyalty to itself above faithfulness to the word which God has spoken,” Dr. Thompson said.

And let’s not forget the STAYERS in TEc who voluntarily commit their own loyalty to TEc without any need of being prompted by 815′s demands to be loyal to TEc.

These STAYERS are Institutionalist-Enablers of soul-destroying heresy and apostasy. Yoked, complicit, and morally culpable.

Well said, FW Ken!! The way she snubbed the Pope is a perfect indication thereof (and I’m glad he received her representative last of all – better that Mr. Sisk hadn’t even been received at all!!).

The same total hatred and contempt is all too visible with her not just allowing, but encouraging – nay, even ORDERING – her “bishops” to sue the daylights out of dissident parishes and dioceses!!!

Truly, she’s one of the Devil’s Antichrists, likely to be subsidiary only to THE Antichrist yet to appear (as far as yours truly can tell…)!!!

The Presiding Bishop’s comment is a denial of the foundation of Christianity. If a priest of my parish had uttered those words, he would be removed within the week. (We would all briefly consider getting up out of our pews to usher him out the door there and then, but we are a polite bunch; we would act more gently, but no less firmly. He would be gone from our midst. Period.)

So, how can such a leader be tolerated in the church? How can a hundred bishops sit still for this? Her statement is outrageous – a scandal in the truest sense, and yet we all know she will remain in office. Even if those already in Christ’s grace can go about their business and ignore her, what of unbelievers? At the very least, she is sowing confusion among those who know that a personal commitment is required, yet have not made it, as well as those who know nothing of the way to salvation. (Think how many will be lost because of her!)

And when we look at the value and meaning of language, we must ask what words mean if she can speak this way and escape correction. In secular terms, this state of affairs is so illogical, so unreasonable, that it presses hard against the limits of sanity. Hers is a world where anyone can say anything and not be held accountable for it. This makes fraud, malpractice, abuse, and all sorts of evil un-actionable. Civilization is dead, and we must look harder than ever for anyone who fears God. (As we know too well, a collar is not a reliable sign.)

I am no longer in TEC, but it is a serious question for me as a Christian: What is to be done about such a false shepherd whose own people will not discipline her?

Well, you did it again, TU..AD. Gone in a flash! By the way, TU…AD, in Orthodoxy, WO has never been an issue-the concept is just too weird for folks to even contemplate. But, that aside, I noticed on another thread on this site that the Dean of a school in Sydney called attention to the appalling ignorance of this woman as to even a rudimentary knowledge of Scripture and Church teachings. One gets the impression that she just makes it up as she goes. Pages and pages and pages of citations to Scripture and the Church Fathers could be used just to refute her teachings on personal salvation and the Crucifixion as a “killing” alone. And how could it be that all the Church councils since Nicea in 325 A.D. cast anathemas upon numerous heresies, yet somehow missed “the great Western heresy” she described? And with her use of “Western,” does she imply that the Orthodox somehow “got it?” As an Orthodox Christian, I can say that I was never told about this particular “heresy” and I don’t get it. The TEO and their presiding Bishopess are prime examples of what happens when people separate themselves from Christ and Scripture. As I believe Chesterton once put it, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe anything.

Mr. Johnson: A “figure four leg-lock?” You really are a pro rasslin’ fan, aren’t you? This is completely off topic, but as a kid, my brothers and I used to watch pro rasslin’ every Monday night from a station in Omaha, featuring the Dusek brothers, Joe and Ernie, fellow Bohunks who left the stockyards in South Omaha for the pro circuit. We used to yell ourselves hoarse cheering on the likes of Verne Gagne and others, but could never quite figure out why Dad spent so much time chuckling during the matches. Gorgeous George would be proud of you!

“Well, you did it again, TU..AD. Gone in a flash!”

Well, I think Sasha helped a little bit with his irenic remarks. He deserves some credit too.

BTW, you were the first one to notice and comment on FenelonSpoke’s behavior of running away whenever she was challenged about an assertion she was making. It’s just been confirmed time and time again since you first observed it. Rather troll-like actually.

Thank you, TU..aD!! My remarks are “irenic” – that most surely must be due to sarcasm as they’re anything but!! [According to the dictionary definition thereof, for they most certainly don't promote peace!!!]

Get a grip, Sasha, you are being praised. I enjoy your posts very much – direct, undiluted Christian thought. Tu…AD – as to FenelonSpoke – much mystery there. Adopts the name of a rather obscure French Roman Catholic bishop saint. Claims ordination, but not Anglican, Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Only leaves ECLA in terms of liturgical and sacramental Christianity. (That is, placing Oriental Orthodox and Coptics and Ethiopians with the Orthodox). But refuses to disclose her/his denomination. Always has “dear friends” who are gay, in commmitted relationships, are traditionalists, are not traditonalists, etc., etc. Not fair to comment on someone who is not here, so will quit for now, but all does make me wonder. And, Sasha, once again, love your posts. Masculine, aggressive Christianity is missing in today’s world – folks like you are a real treasure. Christ as Pantocrator, not “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.”

Thank you, Mr. Janousek!! I wasn’t counting upon that, honestly! [I've learned not to expect much praise or love in this world - so be it, and may God never let me go astray with my various sick emotions of hatred, despair, megalomania, etc., and may He always Keep me true to Him with what I dare write. I fear very much for the future, and should things go bad, please pray that I can stand up for the Faith.]

You’ve also written some very fine posts too that yours truly enjoys!! To God be all the glory!…

You are not TUAD so I will answer you. :^) As I explained, I adopted the same of Fenelon because I like his writings. I am not required to say my denomination. If Chris has checked he can affirm that I am ordained but I would ask that he not say what denomination it is. I don’t have dear gay friends in committed relationships. I have friends who are gay clergy. I have known a ELCA gay man who is in a commited relationship, and even if I don’t think gays should marry in the church and am not in support of gay marriage, I have found him to be a likeable man with a love for Jesus and gifts for ministry. And I do have friends who are traditionalists, some of whom don’t think women should be priests. I would think that if nothing else, it would be obvious to most people here that I am not a troll. And it should also be obvious that I am quite tradtional in my Christology and my view of the mission of the church as making disciples.

For some people the very idea of a woman being ordained is an affront to them. I can’t help that and I can’t change their mind. I am what I am. :^) Here I stand. They can be comfortable in the fact that I am not their pastor and not seeking ordination in their particular church. I can be comfortable that I am not the pastor of TUAD.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ

The quintessence of a passive-aggressive woman, who manages to turn even “Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ” to serve her turn.

But, then, she might just as well be an Episcopalian, as the ELCA is one of TE”C” pack of “running dogs.”

Ah, FenelonSpoke, I used to know a sodomite who was supposedly in a “committed relationship” (and apparently was together with him for something like 10 years) – but what suddenly happened but that wretch went elsewhere after another conquest!!

Both of the other two such whom I used to know over the past 18 years didn’t stay with their “lovers” more than 2 years! Furthermore, they seemed all too eager to have all sorts of conquests each during all those times (I can’t be sure as yours truly was all too glad NOT to poke the one’s nose into their miserable “affairs”!!!).

On the other hand, there is one lady (herself the daughter of a late Lutheran minister who died over a quarter-century ago) who truly knows her theology and other stuff better than any “female clergy” yours truly had the misfortune of knowing (two of which turned out to be sodomites)!! She would in their place have whipped them in all regards – yet she NEVER was interested in that kind of work!! She has the same traditional view that I’ve finally come to have!! [She was pretty well the only one who could have changed that viewpoint in the end - of the other 9 or so I all in all have known over the years, 1 would have best never been born, period; 2 more were sodomites (I didn't know that at the time but I never liked them much), 1 I can't truly judge, 1 seemed reasonably OK, while the last 3 (one of whom is my therapist) were/are "straight" yet definite heretics!!!]

Oh, yes, I have known aome actors who are gay, and yes they are in committed relationships. They also faithfully attend the RCC and claim to know and love Jesus. Both wanted to be priests. If you are a sentient human being and work in the theatre you know people who are gay. :^) They are very nice and interesting men and as I am not their priest I haven’t felt a need to tell them to confess their sins to me. I am a sinner too. And actually, I have more in common with them than I do with both gay and straight people who want to lock me in a concentraion camp for being a Christian, who think all people who believe in God are morons or that religion is responsible for every evil in the world since the year dot.

Thus, out of a total of 8 sodomites yours truly has seriously crossed paths with in these last 25 years, there was only two I could feel pity and sympathy for – basically decent men who however contracted AIDS and ended up dying untimely deaths.

[One of those two gentlemen was better known directly by yours truly; the other one was recommended by the lady friend I've mentioned above on musical grounds - she knew him well and grieved his subsequent death very bitterly...]

Consequently, I’m extremely skeptical about the ability of most sodomites (probably 90% or higher) to have anything like a commtted relationship. Compare that to the heterosexual statistics (wherever they be available) and I’ll dare say the evidence will speak for itself!

No doubt there are many gays who sleep around as there are many straights who do. I am telling you about the people I know personally. It is also true that most of the gays I know came from difficult family lives and their fathers were quite distant or verbally or physically absusive I also know straight peoplke with the similar backgrounds. I am sure there are gay people with happy family lives. I just don’t know many. I don’t see any compelling evidence that all gays were absolutely born that way. I think being gay comes from a number of factors. There is a poster here who speaks to that issue and also posts on SFIF (I can’t recall his name) who doesn’t like the tern “gay”. Perhaps he will chime in,

So did I speak precisely about sodomites whom I got to know personally.

Of the three lesbians I met, 1 truly had best never been born (she was a real Antichrist and truly helped harm me considerably, although a little good did eventually emerge from her evil for me!!!!), while the other two I never liked that much. Perhaps DH Lawrence had/has a point (in “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”) when he via the character Oliver Mellors said “that they should be wiped off the earth!”]

However, that sodomites DARE use the word “gay” to describe themselves is an absolute oxymoron (their supposed happiness has all too often proved itself merely superficial)!!!

I think an attitude that gays should be wiped off the earth is reprehensible, and as far as D.H. Lawrence he had his own issues with homeroticism-something which is very evident in one of his novels-the name of which escapes me now (After 45 the memory starts to slip with many women but it has the two sisters in it, and one of the main men freezes to death, I remember. D.H. Lawrence was a fine writer (I prefer his short stories to most of his novels) but he was a quite weird man in his peronal life, IMO.

I need to go to sleep now. I enjoyed chatting, Sasha.

Grace and peace be with you in Jesus Christ.

Whoops; I just thought of the title: “Women in Love”

He didn’t say that of all homosexuals – it was about “lesbians” that he articulated that sentiment!!

Either way, that novel is the only one yours truly knows (although I’ve read some, fiction isn’t truly my cup of tea…).

As to me: if I had truly such an attitude, not only would I be un-Christian; I’d furthermore be a hypocrite for loving much of the music written by P.I. Chaykóvskiy. Thus, don’t lump me into there, please!!!

No doubt I have my passive aggressive moments (Men have them too) but saying “Peace be with you” isn’t one of them, professor. That is my understanding of what the Bible says for me to say and to pray for those people who disagree with me.

Good baiting job though. ;^)

Good night.

And if it is about lesbains it’s just as reprehensible IMO.

Now I must go.

An excellent statement coming from Sydney.

It seems to me that the PB looked at the theme for the convention and made up something about the faith to fit the theme. The faith is what she thinks, and it has no grounding in Scripture or Tradition. When the statement is being ripped apart by folks from Sydney evangelicals to American Catholics, you know there’s something really wrong with it. Hey — from that point of view it’s an ecumenical effort! We all disagree with her.

All the discussion about all the nice, or not nice, people we have known who experience same-sex attraction is interesting, but not convincing theologically. Any sentient adult knows some such folks, and of course some of them are nice people with whom we have sympathy. Being different is very hard, and this one is especially tough.

But this is to play the gay lobby’s game. They use the sympathy to get us to agree that behavior we know is objectively disordered (as the Vatican says) is really okay.

Sasha, I don’t have the reports at hand to link to, but I believe there are reliable statistical studies showing your observations to be accurate. I think the statistic is more than 90% of male homosexual partnerships are not exclusive sexually. This is backed up anecdotally by Andrew Sullivan’s book on the subject, in which he suggested that exclusive sexual relationships are not normal and that the gay “open marriage” concept should be extended to heterosexual marriage as an improvement.

Thanks, Katherine. I’m well aware of the “sympathy” gambit used by the sodomite lobby, against which yours truly remembers a verse from Proverbs (the exact chapter & verse fail me at this moment):

[blockquote]“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, yet it leads to death.”[/blockquote]

Now, if you could come up with the reports’ links you mention above, it would be most useful. Many thanks in advance!

I thought this would be hard, Sasha, but it didn’t take too long at all:

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

The chart immediately following shows a self-reported fidelity rate among married women of 85%, married men 75.5%, and male homosexuals in a relationship, 4.5%. Lots more information at the source.

FenelonSpoke: “Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ”

William Tighe: “The quintessence of a passive-aggressive woman, who manages to turn even “Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ” to serve her turn.

But, then, she might just as well be an Episcopalian, as the ELCA is one of TE”C” pack of “running dogs.””

Indeed, indeed. William, take a look at this recent story in Time magazine:

“Women should be allowed to care about pleasing ourselves — and only ourselves — without being judged. What is wrong with a woman being selfish? Really. Think about it for a second. Why shouldn’t we be selfish if it means we’re meeting our own needs and taking care of ourselves? What’s wrong with caring more about bringing pleasure to your own life than anything else? It should not be as controversial as it apparently is for women to think of themselves first if they are not hurting anyone. Reasonable people agree a woman should make herself happy, but why do these people suddenly because so unreasonable when those women say it would make her happy to just focus on herself?”

Betsy McCall: “I am no longer in TEC, but it is a serious question for me as a Christian: What is to be done about such a false shepherd whose own people will not discipline her?”

Would you like me to offer an opinion, flawed and incomplete as it may be?

Betsy McCall: “I am no longer in TEC, but it is a serious question for me as a Christian: What is to be done about such a false shepherd whose own people will not discipline her?”

A technical point. Could a false shepherd not also refer to someone who’s been invalidly ordained?

TU&D, the “TIME Magazine” link went to CNN.com. Did the item come from TIME? You read TIME? I gave that up years ago. And, what does this “Frisky” at TIME/CNN have to do with the commenter you don’t like, or Jefferts Schori, for that matter? Selfish women certainly exist, as do selfish men. World’s full of sinners.

It was in reference to William Tighe’s comment about the quintessence of a passive-aggressive woman.

I didn’t think it would be that hard for you to see that.

I don’t think the article you linked had anything to do with passive-aggressive behavior. It was an “advice” column defending women who don’t want to have children because they want to please themselves rather than others. It doesn’t seem to apply.

“Women should be allowed to care about pleasing ourselves — and only ourselves — without being judged. What is wrong with a woman being selfish? Really. Think about it for a second.”

Okay. I thought about it for a second. If a woman believes that she has a “calling” from who knows where or from who knows what or who, and nothing can validate that call except her own subjective feelings, then yeah, I can see why she would request that she not be judged. After all, the primacy of her feelings and emotions and what she thought she heard was a “call” takes precedence over any objective or external standards.

So, how can such a leader be tolerated in the church? How can a hundred bishops sit still for this?

We’ve been wondering about this for a long while now. If, during prayers of the people at our parish, I hear the intercessor state “our” presiding bishop one more time, I think I’ll barf…