I’d like to see the argument grounded on this resolution that, since Holy Orders is not a sacrament, denying access to Holy Orders to those living unchaste lives outside of heterosexual marriage is not denying access to all the sacraments by all the baptised.

What a crock, All of it. Most especially the reference to Article XXV. Oh hell, why pick and choose. It is all crap!

IMO, that is such a facile Biblical argument for same sex marriage, “Jesus never condemned it”. Jesus said a “Man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. He did not add, but “if you are Joshua and Nathaneal and really love one another that’s o.k too.” Yes, indeed, if we decide to do whatever Jesus didn’t condemn we’ll all be in deep doo-doo. However, these are some of the same folks who say “Well, of course David and Jonathan were gay as were Ruth and Naomi”, the latter of which is so ludicrous it’s risible. As far as D&J, I am a straight woman. I have love for (some) women that surpasses the love of (some) men. I really don’t think there is enough evidence to suggest that David and Johnathan were gettinbg it one. Then again, this society assumes (as I said before) that if you love someone you are having sex with them. Indeed, that it is almost required to have sex with them. How limiting to the concept of love.

“Our entire argument revolves around one basic fact.

Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexual activity by name so it’s fine with us.”

These people who make this argument have to look at ALL of Scripture.

————-

Bottom-Line: This is gross apostasy and institutional sin by TEc.

“…(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself-Baptism and the Supper of the Lord-ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administrations to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church;”

These words do not mean what (they) think it means.

Good work by the Rev. G. Thomas Luck, proposer. Except he’s behind the times. There aren’t enough orthodox left that it’s necessary to throw them a bone any more. The orthodox part would have more problem getting passed than the same-sex part.

Those words mean whatever they want them to mean. The Rev. Charles Dodgson has apparently been adopted by the Episcopal Church hierarchy as their patron saint.

Heheh - Lewis Carroll.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
–BCP 2014 Ed.

Bovine feces, the whole lot of it. Perhaps a little Calorific Recovery by Anaerobic Processing?

Remember that, if passed, this is just a statement of where the community is at this point in time. (c) K. Schori.

I suppose someone thinks they are being bold and cutting edge to suggest that The Episcopal Church believes that the New Testament teaches that certain kinds of sexual behavior are sinful. but if passed, it is just a passing thought, something that they all thought about one evening in July.

Most offensive to me (given that all SSM stuff is already a given) is this suggestion that the conventioneers can do theology in real-time, by a majority vote of engineers and gardeners and retired school teachers. I know, I know that the priests have all been sent out from theological college to spread the news that when St. Paul condemns “man with man” sex (and the Greek word for “man” is exactly the same as Jesus uses for “therefore a man shall … cleave to his wife”) he actually means something quite different. But to rub it in our faces by taking a show of hands on it. Well that offends me.

I think most of the Anglican World will be deeply offended.

Deeply cynical, to cloak this in traditional dress. I’d bet this one won’t pass. These people aren’t going to vote in favor of the Articles of Religion. The Articles and the Creeds, remember, use formulae to express the faith, and the PB says that’s bad.

Notice that they drop the ordination rite language that the Scriptures are THE WORD OF GOD containing all things necessary to salvation…

Dishonesty of this magnitude would offend the residents of your average maximum security prison. Persons such as this cannot be reasoned with. Let them go.

FenelonSpoke “Then again, this society assumes (as I said before) that if you love someone you are having sex with them.”. But my dear, is that not the meaning of love (or should that be “lurv’) ?

But what concerns me more is this paragraph from the proposed resolution:

“Resolved, That the discernment of The Episcopal Church is that there are no theological barriers to blessing same-sex marriages where allowable by law, or same-sex domestic partnerships where allowable by law, or same-sex relationships that are based on love, fidelity and lifelong commitment”.

Note there is no “and” but an “or” between each of the first two criteria and the last criterion for the non existence of “theological barriers” to the blessing. So the other two criteria are sufficient in themselves to merit the “blessing”. So a theological barrier is removable on the say so of the secular power. So the final arbiter of “faith and morals” is the secular power. Dammit; there is a magisterium in the TEO after all !!

The final triumph of Henry VIII.

Jesus never discussed arson or bombing by name either. More significantly, Jesus’ discussions on sexual morality raised the bar — the OT didn’t expressly condemn lust to the degree He did. The utter dishonesty of the pro-homosexual position is met only by those (often the same folks) who suggest that Euthanasia is good.

I appreciate their logic while at the same time I hold that gay marriage is impossible.

They see that classical Protestants believed in a fallible, fungible church that said marriage isn’t a sacrament and take that to a logical conclusion: ‘we as a church can and will marry whomever we want’. The same really for holy orders.

So in a sense their relative traditionalism isn’t fake but a real continuation.

ACNA - Episcopalianism Minus Gay Weddings - is only two jumps (’Enlightenment’ which turned many Anglicans into unitarians or unbelievers, po-mo) behind them.

Where are the United Nations and the MDG (pbut) mentioned in the Gospels? Perhaps in one of those Syriac variant readings?