March 23, 2017

May 20, 2010


Mother Earth, Pagan Rituals,  Ancestor Worship, Dancing Girls—the Consecration of Mary Glasspool

Here is the entire event from beginning to end. Its just…I don’t know what to say. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Here is an article that provides some more information about the Native American “smudging” ceremony you will see at the beginning of the liturgy.

In any case, smudging is a ceremony that must be done with care. We are entering into a relationship with the unseen powers of these plants, and with the spirits of the ceremony. As with all good relationships, there has to be respect and honor if the relationship is to work…more

. Be sure to watch the video above long enough to see Bishop Bruno taking part in the smudge.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

202 comments

I lasted about 10 seconds.  Garbage.

[1] Posted by fat bill on 5-20-2010 at 07:11 AM · [top]

What’s sad is that the Native American rites have become almost commonplace. The reasons for that are fairly straight forward. As the Episcopal Church has drifted, paddled and motored away from the faith once received they have to console themselves by using the tribal rites as a means of establishing ‘authenticity’. If they had the courage of their official theology, they wouldn’t have to prove anything.

They are similar to a teenager, who confronted with a dinner table laden with healthy tasty food, runs off to a fast food joint for a burger and fries. The results are the same as well. Instead of being spiritually healthy and strong, they are flabby and weak.

[2] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 5-20-2010 at 07:16 AM · [top]

I don’t know…musicians and dancers from several cultures, singing nun…..kinda like the old Ed Sullivan “shew”.

[3] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-20-2010 at 07:30 AM · [top]

It really is like small children putting together their own “birthday menu” isn’t it?

[4] Posted by Sarah on 5-20-2010 at 07:46 AM · [top]

I think Aleister Crowley would be offended that the sacred ritual of Black Mass was defiled in these ways. Yet, I’m sure that the devil was Really Present in the sacrifice, and that the assembly received the appropriate benefits. I can’t comprehend the magnitude of (the wrong kind of) spiritual energy that must have been present in that room.

[5] Posted by Ralph on 5-20-2010 at 07:47 AM · [top]

Just clicked to download it and got a notice saying this file could harm my computer. How bad is this?

[6] Posted by Ann McCarthy on 5-20-2010 at 08:01 AM · [top]

Look on the bright side - at least they skipped the Giant Papier-Mache Puppets of Doom . . .

[7] Posted by DeeBee on 5-20-2010 at 08:03 AM · [top]

And this is thought to be Anglican.

[8] Posted by Pb on 5-20-2010 at 08:14 AM · [top]

Its just so ... so… predictable now. Sad isn’t it.

[9] Posted by Robert Lundy on 5-20-2010 at 08:15 AM · [top]

True, DeeBee, true.

I’ve updated the post above with a link to a description of what takes place during a “smudge ceremony”

[10] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-20-2010 at 08:19 AM · [top]

“Traditional Anglican ceremony steeped in ancient roots”
Tony Clavier
Intercessor

[11] Posted by Intercessor on 5-20-2010 at 08:23 AM · [top]

So I have managed to get through Part 1.  A couple of comments.

1.  I think I get it.  What we have here is a theatrical display of the diversity of man, and (by extension) God.  We are supposed to see Him in all his manifestations in every human culture.  TEC is very inclusive, donchaknow.  It’s a way to mention “The Issue” without mentioning “The Issue.”  The syncretism is somewhat muted by the fact that nothing is translated so we really don’t know the spiritual content of all the ritual and dancing and words. 

2.  The one exception to the “no translation” rule was an excerpt from Psalm 100 during the Mongolian Folk song.  Perhaps there were more, but these were not shown on the video.  This excerpt from the Psalm was the only formal Christian content in the whole 40 minutes of part 1.  Now, if you are of the diverse and inclusive TEC, this will not bother you because you are seeing God displayed in all His various non-western, non-Eurocentric manifestations. 

3.  As pure entertainment, I enjoyed the two dance sets and the Mongolian singers.  (OK, I admit I laughed out loud at the first dancers a few times, and the Mongolian Tenor was ...overpowering.)  I could have lived without the hippie folk song at the end, and the Indian rituals at the front simply dripped of paganism.  But since they weren’t translated, we can only infer.  Did the Indian guy really says his people lived in the land for a 1000 years without sin?  Yes, he did.  Did the Bishop-guy really say something about “Your Holy ancestors?”  Yes he did.

4.  You might try to count the number of people under the Age of 70 in the audience.  I remember maybe three.  I am sure there were more.

5.  Was there anything worshipful in these 40 minutes?  I hope not, because it could only have been pagan worship.  Maybe I just don’t get it, however.  Maybe Elijah should have been more enlightened in his dealings with the prophets of Baal.  After all, the priests of Baal were only expressing their particular cultural manifestation of the Divine.

carl

[12] Posted by carl on 5-20-2010 at 08:26 AM · [top]

Not only is it a diverse parade of various cultural groups and ethnicities, it is a parade of various cultural groups and ethnicities that do not go to the Episcopal Church…save perhaps the fat white guys with the bagpipes…but even they looked too working class.

[13] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-20-2010 at 08:33 AM · [top]

WOW! Carl you said everything there needs to be said….Spot on dear chap! Bruno kind of look like he might have some Indian ancestry in his background….I just wonder if he is not just trying to reconnect to his “roots?”
It truly is though a sad spectacle….so far down have the leaders of TEc gone….and we helped by allowing for so many decades this path to continue. God weeps

[14] Posted by TLDillon on 5-20-2010 at 08:42 AM · [top]

Oh my. At first I thought it cannot be this bad, as if this was some parody, like the I am Episcopalian videos. Then I realized it wasn’t - it was real - both videos. As the video says, “Episcopalians will believe almost everything. All we require is that you love and serve the deity. It’s all the same…”

May the force be with you.

[15] Posted by Festivus on 5-20-2010 at 08:45 AM · [top]

What a treat for Jesus!

[16] Posted by priestwalter on 5-20-2010 at 08:46 AM · [top]

Unitarians are one step up from THAT!

[17] Posted by Goughdonna on 5-20-2010 at 08:59 AM · [top]

I believe the sad part is that the laity who attended have no idea why this celebration is not Christian.

The clergy know better but dismiss it….intentionally.  The laity are have no idea that their bishops and clergy are leading they away from Christ.

[18] Posted by Creighton+ on 5-20-2010 at 09:15 AM · [top]

The mystery remains…poor Kevin Thew “Genpo” Forrester.

He must be wondering…why he was branded as unacceptable as a Bishop in this sect?

I suspect, and there is no way to prove this, but if KT"G"P came out as gay he would be wearing a miter on this day.

DoW

[19] Posted by DietofWorms on 5-20-2010 at 09:35 AM · [top]

I sort of missed the dancing girls and the worship of the baptismal font that were part of the PB’s investiture at the National Cathedral.  Guess funds must be short this year…

[20] Posted by RalphM on 5-20-2010 at 09:36 AM · [top]

But there were dancing girls in T-shirts this time…they just didn’t make it to the font.

[21] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-20-2010 at 09:37 AM · [top]

Thank God that when I returned to Anglicanism I walked into a conservative parish and am embarking at a new era of Anglican worship in the ACNA. I am really surprised at what I saw in that video. Oh what happened to church where I was raised as a child? I missed much being away for the last forty-four years. I pray that they come to their senses and renounce this nonsense.

[22] Posted by michaelc on 5-20-2010 at 09:52 AM · [top]

That was horrible. So horrible that it might get included in the next prayer book. “Liturgy of the dead bird on a stick.”

[23] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 5-20-2010 at 10:05 AM · [top]

Like it or not - if you are in the TEC these people are part of your witness to the world. Being a glass half full type of guy I concentrate on the bright side. When they are busy with their pagan rituals their attention is diverted from litigating the orthdox out of their buildings.

[24] Posted by sic transit gloria mundi on 5-20-2010 at 10:15 AM · [top]

sic transit gloria mundi,
LOL! I wish it were true but, they have a lofty wallet and many attorneys attached to it…so while they are making merry with many facets of expression their attorneys are doing their dirty work for them.

[25] Posted by TLDillon on 5-20-2010 at 10:28 AM · [top]

It had tasteless parts-

-The native American rites and singing were dismal. Was +Bruno getting a “despojo” to ward off evil spirits?

-Horrid theology- “my people lived without sin for 1000 years” ...Did anyone flinch at that ????

- hip hop liturgical dance ...ugggh, how CEC!

- I liked +Gene’s consecration and the PB enthronement much better.

Blessings

seraph

[26] Posted by seraph on 5-20-2010 at 10:28 AM · [top]

LOL….LMBO! Coming from you seraph that says a lot.

[27] Posted by TLDillon on 5-20-2010 at 10:36 AM · [top]

“sic transit gloria mundi”  - may be accurate.  “Gloria threw up on the bus on Monday.”

[28] Posted by maineiac on 5-20-2010 at 10:56 AM · [top]

Was this all Glasspool’s idea, or did the other new bp agree?  At least, I think someone else was bp’d?  Wasn’t there? Ummmmmmm…..  My memory’s really getting fuzzy (smudgy?) about that.

[29] Posted by maineiac on 5-20-2010 at 10:58 AM · [top]

[30] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 5-20-2010 at 11:00 AM · [top]

“It’s the Muppet Show with our very special guest stars…”

[31] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 5-20-2010 at 11:01 AM · [top]

All they were missing were the Wiccans…or were they there too?????

[32] Posted by TLDillon on 5-20-2010 at 11:06 AM · [top]

This is hilarious looking!!

I wish some Cowboys would have shown up and opened a can of whupass on them Injuns!!

Oops, did I say that? 

So predictable and sappy and meaningless.  I hope the over 60 set (former hippies) is enjoying this. Young people seem to be staying away in droves.

[33] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 5-20-2010 at 11:09 AM · [top]

Thirty bishops were there. Please post any comments from any who will admit they were there. I would like to see the spin.

[34] Posted by Pb on 5-20-2010 at 11:18 AM · [top]

I do not know whether my primary reaction would have been boredom or horror.  Perhaps boredom at first, followed by the horror as I recognized all that was unchristian about many of the groups.

I have a great respect for American Indians, and for their ceremonies, and I think that many of those ceremonies could be adapted to have Christian meanings, for (from what I know of the beliefs of the Eastern and the Plains Indians), they were monotheists and the Christian faith would deepen their perspective on God.  That would not be true of Asian cultures, which have an entirely different perspective on spiritual matters.

[35] Posted by AnglicanXn on 5-20-2010 at 11:22 AM · [top]

That being said, however, when Asians become Christians, they often have a more thorough conversion - as we can tell from the steadfastness of the Chinese Anglicans who have resisted the encroachments of the revisionists so strongly.  When Asians go wrong, they often do an even more thorough job of it - Kwok Pwe Lan, of EDS, for instance, who gave some of the worst departures from orthodoxy at the “Revisioning” conference in the early 90’s.

[36] Posted by AnglicanXn on 5-20-2010 at 11:30 AM · [top]

I was especially glad to see Joey Buttafuco make his contribution during the opening.

[37] Posted by DaveW on 5-20-2010 at 01:12 PM · [top]

Is there a “highlights” version of this travesty so we don’t have to sit through the entire thing?

[38] Posted by st. anonymous on 5-20-2010 at 01:37 PM · [top]

Thirty bishops were there.

Please tell me that there was no Welsh fellow with a scruffy beard and bushy eyebrows.

Holds up hand, knowing it is a bit off topic…..
Father Matt, could we have a “name that bishop” thread?

Or did they all pull their copes over their heads when the cameras were on them?

[39] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-20-2010 at 01:45 PM · [top]

#23 <blockquote>“Liturgy of the dead bird on a stick.”/blockquote>
Shades of Monty Python!
“This, is an ex-, parrot!”

[40] Posted by Milton on 5-20-2010 at 01:47 PM · [top]

How come they didn’t get Elton John to headline?

[41] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 5-20-2010 at 02:07 PM · [top]

Here’s a list of bishops involved:

“Other female bishops who joined in the consecration were Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Barbara Harris, retired suffragan Massachusetts; Carolyn Tanner Irish, Utah; Jane Holmes-Dixon, retired Washington, DC; and Nedi Revera, provisional Eastern Oregon.

“Co-consecrating bishops included: Frederick H. Borsch, retired Los Angeles; Lawrence Provenzano, Long Island; John Rabb, Suffragan of Maryland; Eugene Sutton, Maryland; Robert Ilhoff, retired Maryland; and Mark Hollingsworth, Ohio.

“The Diocese of Los Angeles bishops were on hand including Bishop Jon Bruno, Suffragan Bishop Chester L. Talton, Assistant Bishop Sergio Carranza, and retired Bishop Robert Anderson.

“Other bishops present and extending their hands in ordination were: Chilton Knudsen, retired Maine; Vicky Gene Robinson, New Hampshire; Gregory Rickel, Olympia; Michael Hanley, Oregon; James Mathes, San Diego; John Chane, Washington, DC; Wilfredo Ramos-Orench, Central Equator; Bob Jones, retired Wyoming; Kirk Smith, Arizona; Martin DeJesus Barahona, El Salvador; Christopher Senyonjo, retired, W. Buganda, Uganda.

“Ecumenical Lutheran bishops present included: Dean Nelson, Southwest California Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and Murray D. Finck Pacifica Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”
(from article by Virtue and Mary Ann Mueller)

[42] Posted by Paula on 5-20-2010 at 02:21 PM · [top]

This was a polyglot mishmash of absurdity mixed with heresy and apostasy, with an unhealthy dose of atavism thrown in for good measure.

[43] Posted by Cennydd on 5-20-2010 at 02:54 PM · [top]

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the participation of a retired Ugandan bishop is not going to go over well with the Ugandan HoB. 

I must extend an apology to (and ask forgiveness of) the CoE HoB, as I was almost certain at least one of them would show up, and I think I voiced that suspicion at least once publicly.  And I am quite surprised that Ingham of New Westminster is not among those listed- Canada, Brazil and Mexico stayed away.  It would seem that overall, not only was local attendance somewhat below planned expectations, but the attendance by Communion bishops was down as well, for an event with this “historic” significance.  Even the usual revisionist suspects kept a low profile.

[44] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-20-2010 at 03:14 PM · [top]

What a farce, a true opera bouffe of stilted absurdity.  I half expected Jaye P. Morgan to spring up and strike an enormous gong at any moment whilst Chuck Barris mugged for the cameras.

[45] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-20-2010 at 03:34 PM · [top]

Re: #38 - “Is there a ‘highlights’ version of this travesty so we don’t have to sit through the entire thing?”

Why, Of Course There Is!

wink

[46] Posted by DeeBee on 5-20-2010 at 03:35 PM · [top]

TJMcMahon,
I don’t think much more action will be taken bu Uganda HoB:

“Bishop Senyonjo was expelled from the Church of Uganda by Archbishop Henry Orombi in 2006 for his support of homosexuals. ”

[47] Posted by Bo on 5-20-2010 at 03:38 PM · [top]

This was a polyglot mishmash of absurdity mixed with heresy and apostasy, with an unhealthy dose of atavism thrown in for good measure.

You’re getting soft in your old age, Cennydd.  That’s the nicest anyone could say about this array of foolishness.  The various groups don’t even seem to realize that they’re on stage as tokens of the liberals’ gaseous guilt, mascots to their faithlessness.

[48] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-20-2010 at 03:52 PM · [top]

That smoking can’t possibly be good for you.  And I would have thought that venue was nonsmoking.

[49] Posted by pendennis88 on 5-20-2010 at 04:03 PM · [top]

what a joke

[50] Posted by texaspiper on 5-20-2010 at 04:03 PM · [top]

It’s been raining a while, now. Didn’t somebody in the neighborhood mention something about an “ark” he was building in his backyard? Might be time to look the old guy up….

[51] Posted by ears2hear on 5-20-2010 at 04:16 PM · [top]

Wake me when they get to the Christian part.

[52] Posted by Bill2 on 5-20-2010 at 04:18 PM · [top]

I hope your real name is Rip van Winkle, Bill2.

[53] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-20-2010 at 04:29 PM · [top]

Jeffersonian,

I think Rip van Winkle’s sleep would but be only a short nap in comparison to the length of the sleep necessary to get to the Christian part of TEO’s exuberances.

[54] Posted by BillB on 5-20-2010 at 05:05 PM · [top]

I’m not sure even pagans under the age of 45 could stand something like this ...

[55] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 5-20-2010 at 05:13 PM · [top]

About 16 minutes into the video, they have what appears to be a Filipino native dance (read:  Filipino “indians”).  I’ve seen such dances, and I can tell you that these guys didn’t exactly pull out the stops, if you know what I mean. 

It would have been interesting if they let Bruno participate in the Tinikling (Tinikling:  think jump-rope, Scottish sword-dancing, and bamboo).  That .. would have probably drawn a real crowd.  smile

Then again, having the Tinikling done would have eclipsed everything else.  Wouldn’t want to have that.

[56] Posted by J Eppinga on 5-20-2010 at 05:37 PM · [top]

I only watched about a minute of this, but it seemed oddly familiar.  Did they lift this from the opening ceremony of the Vancouver Olympics?

[57] Posted by Payton on 5-20-2010 at 05:44 PM · [top]

Maranatha!

[58] Posted by humble country parson on 5-20-2010 at 06:17 PM · [top]

Antidote from the consecration of Gus DiNoia about a year ago -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70m1zOM1wI

[59] Posted by Violent Papist on 5-20-2010 at 06:33 PM · [top]

I think they should have capped it all off with a stirring rendition of “We Are the World.”  Could someone out there familiar with the APA Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders please tell me what disorder(s) is/are most closely associated with these folks?  I think the lay person’s term for it would be “being totally unaware that what you think is really cool just causes sane people to laugh at you.”

[60] Posted by Daniel on 5-20-2010 at 07:13 PM · [top]

I’ve only been in Anglicanism since the 1st of the year.

All I can think after reading all that’s happened since then and now this is, Rev 2:19-23. I know that may come across as heavy but tell me that Jesus is not as jealous for His Church today as He was then.

Revelation 2:20-23
19 s “‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman t Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants [1] u to practice sexual immorality and u to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but v she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,  23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he w who searches mind and heart, and x I will give to each of you according to your works.

Lord have mercy on them!

[61] Posted by poultond on 5-20-2010 at 07:24 PM · [top]

[62] Loukas

well, whats wrong with that?

There are two things wrong with that.

1.  There is no “divine inspiration present in other religious traditions.”  Those false religions are universally condemned as idolatry.

2.  The Lord Jesus never assumed the role of a false Greek god.  That would have been sin.  See Item 1 for an exposition.

carl

[62] Posted by carl on 5-20-2010 at 08:18 PM · [top]

[60] Daniel

Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the more I learned about the clinical details behind this disorder, the more I’ve come to the opinion that it is the closest our modern world gets to putting a name to what readers here know as original sin.

[63] Posted by wildiris on 5-20-2010 at 08:32 PM · [top]

The part of the church which recognized the divine spark in all people is known as the gnostic heresy. But then, KJS does not believe in the uniqueness of Jesus and would be at home with this celebration.

[64] Posted by Pb on 5-20-2010 at 08:37 PM · [top]

I suppose I ought to be indignant, but I’m not. This soi-disant liturgy is too far bourgeois to engender any other response than, “Oh. Bless their hearts.” These liturgies are completely passe and have become mere rote acts of narcissism by exhibitionists showing off the utter banality of what they call their Christian faith and life.

[65] Posted by A Senior Priest on 5-20-2010 at 09:26 PM · [top]

Loukas,
At the pond, He did not trouble the water, but healed openly as Himself.  Not pretender to foreign gods is He.

Theotokos, not Theometer.  My Greek ain’t great, but I know the difference in ‘God Bearer’ and ‘Mother of God’.

The after life is as described in Scripture, can’t be ‘platonic’ -  Job is way too early for that (yes, there were heretics then too, Sadducees and all that rot). 

KJS denies that Christ is the Way, making of Him only ‘our way’. 

When Paul addressed those on Mars hill, he commended the search, not the false paths so feebly found.

[66] Posted by Bo on 5-20-2010 at 09:46 PM · [top]

You’re counting the still-as-yet unbaptized Tanner-Irish as a consecrating “bishop”...puh-lease!

Fr. Chris Larimer
Louisville Anglican Prayer Fellowship

[67] Posted by FrChris on 5-20-2010 at 10:36 PM · [top]

I am reminded of what a friend said about hearing the adhan while he was in Iraq: There has got to be something wrong with a religion that makes you moan so damned much!

[68] Posted by Drew on 5-20-2010 at 10:38 PM · [top]

[66] Loukas

Well, I can’t resist but point that what you assume is an exemplary petitio principi fallacy

No, I just simply communicated the content of Scripture. 

can you justify your claim?

Yes, because words have meaning and meanings can be understood.  And, yes, I have absolute confidence in this, because it is exactly what the Lord Jesus did before me.  Here, let me demonstrate.

You err because you do not know the Scripture.

Or perhaps, it would be better to say that you err because you do not believe the Scripture.  Either one works for me.

carl

[69] Posted by carl on 5-20-2010 at 10:46 PM · [top]

48.  I’m getting soft in my old age, Jeffersonian?  I must’ve been soft in the head for staying in TEC for as long as I did!  I also think this conglomeration of rotten music….badly played and sung with a horrible “anthem”....replete with a miasma of swamp gas and fetid air….was the absolute worst pseudo-religious display I’ve ever heard.

[70] Posted by Cennydd on 5-20-2010 at 11:14 PM · [top]

How anyone could come away from a ceremony such as this without a queasy stomach is beyond my understanding.  “Anglican rites” indeed!  The Church Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[71] Posted by Cennydd on 5-20-2010 at 11:16 PM · [top]

Loukas,
Of course He believed in a personal continuation, He even had Job 19:25-27 ‘Ghost Written’ by a Holy Man of Old, so that everyone after could also know it.

[72] Posted by Bo on 5-20-2010 at 11:22 PM · [top]

This is your Episcopal liturgy.  This is your Episcopal liturgy on syncretism. (Remember the old this is your brain on drugs commercial?)

What. A. Mess.
Not. A. Mass.

[73] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-21-2010 at 02:56 AM · [top]

I am not advocating or supporting the rituals used at this consecration, but the Church has at times in her history “baptized” pagan rituals and incorporated them into the life and worship of the Church. For example, the one that really bothers me is Bishop’s vestments. They are the clothes originally worn by Roman magistrates and “baptized” by Constantine. They are a symbol of power and not of a servant shepherd. They are in actuality a symbol of conquest and oppression. It is no wonder why 4th century Christians ran to the desert when the new magistrate, I mean Bishop, showed up for a visit. 

On the flip side, the Church should not be too quick to judge as we have our own set of pagan rituals we have created through the years even though we consider them sacred. Just try and replace pews with chairs or have your Rector vestmentless or use an iPad instead of an Altar Book and the “golden calves” of your parish will soon be revealed. smile

Let the flaming begin.

[74] Posted by revdons on 5-21-2010 at 07:30 AM · [top]

[74] Loukas

In the passage you quote Jesus explains how the Scripture is known, but not understood.

No, he doesn’t.  He appeals to the authority of Scripture to answer their question, and rebukes the Sadducees for not knowing it.  The Lord Jesus faults the Sadducees for their question, and not the Scripture.  If He holds them accountable for knowing Scripture, we can’t very well say that He was saying “the Scripture is is known, but not understood.”  He is saying the Scripture is known, and open for all to see, and you should have understood this.  And what does He go on to say? 

But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Matt 22:31-32

He again rebukes the Sadducees by appealing directly to the text.  But here has adds the assertion that by reading the text, they would be reading what God has said to them.  This statement by Jesus assumes clarity of communication.  He is not talking about hidden meanings.  He is talking about the perspicuous revelation God to man, and validating that it is so.  The statement is incoherent if taken in any other manner.  He is saying “God already answered this question.  Clearly.  If you had read and believed what God has said, and you would not be asking me these questions.” 

I realize that liberalism is founded upon the assumption that Scripture is a mass of epistemological clay that can be shaped according to whatever fashion appeals to the itching ears of man.  I do not share that presupposition. To justify my position, I need do no more than what Jesus did with the Sadducees.  If that is not sufficient for you, then I am still content.  There is no other authority to which I can appeal.  The is no greater authority to which I could appeal.  All other sources - the church, tradition - are derivative.  That which we know of God we know from Scripture.  That was God’s purpose in giving Scripture in the first place - to communicate to man.  And God always achieves His purposes.

carl

[75] Posted by carl on 5-21-2010 at 08:18 AM · [top]

This is a post-colonialist rant, plan and simple. It opens by deconstructing the Western tradition by substituting its rites and ceremonies with those of “oppressed peoples.” It then proceeds to embrace the deconstructing of traditional marriage (also a Western inheritance) by denoting as holy a woman whose lesbian partnership violates at its core the notion of the union of male and female so fundamental to the West. See? The only way to sanction Glasspool, and Robinson for that matter, is to first dismantle “outmoded,” “colonialist” understandings of categories such as marriage and then come in from behind with “new,” “enlightened” approaches. This sham consecration provides a very vivid illustration of that line of thinking.

[76] Posted by lift high the Cross on 5-21-2010 at 08:20 AM · [top]

You call this a “sham consecration?”  I call it a desecration of Holy Orders.  The utter denial of the sacredness of the office of Bishop in Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  A lampooning of the office.  Sheesh!

[77] Posted by Cennydd on 5-21-2010 at 08:41 AM · [top]

Looks as if the video has been removed. If you find another copy, please repost.

[78] Posted by Romkey on 5-21-2010 at 08:42 AM · [top]

We’ve embedded it at SF. You should still be able to watch it here

[79] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-21-2010 at 08:43 AM · [top]

“You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”—Al Jolson. (Prophet)

[80] Posted by DaveW on 5-21-2010 at 08:46 AM · [top]

Well, it didn’t happen in a consecrated church building.  Thankful for that.  Don’t let the bastards get you down.

[81] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 5-21-2010 at 08:59 AM · [top]

revdons,
Did that.  Well, all but the iPod.

The Piskies kept the pews, vestments, chalice, cloths, the whole she-bang.  The altar guild rounded up linens and a chalice, it took a bit longer to get new vestments, we still use folding chairs in the new place. 

The Altar Book was the rector’s property. 

For now, we’re ‘de-calf-inated’; might have been part of the lesson.

[82] Posted by Bo on 5-21-2010 at 09:16 AM · [top]

So, is human sacrifice next?  Just wonder’in…

[83] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-21-2010 at 09:45 AM · [top]

If you go over to Peter Ould’s blog, there are a string of worthwhile comments and analysis by P. Cole in South Africa.  He posts several comments to take on different aspects of the event, and catches some side comments from the audio as well.  Worth checking out.

[84] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 5-21-2010 at 09:55 AM · [top]

A link to this thing ought to be sent to every GS bishop, with a brief summary report for those without internet access.  The sheer absurdity of this disgusting service leaves TEC self-condemned.  Many GS leaders would find this sort of outrage and blashphemy simply unthinkable.  But it might open a few eyes that still are blithely unaware of just how utterly corrupted TEC has become.

But the same idea might work with willfully ignorant conservative or moderate laypeople in TEC pews who have continued to bury their heads in the sand.

David Handy+

[85] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-21-2010 at 10:09 AM · [top]

As for one of the liberal (albeit foreign) TEC bishops present, the infamous Martin Barahona of El Salvador (who also appeared at VGR’s consecration in NH in 2003), it’s a minor cause of celebration that he’s no longer the primate for the province of Central America (5 dioceses: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nacaragua, Panama).  His place was taken by the orthodox bishop of Guatemala, Armando Guerra, who in Jan., 2004 wrote an open letter denouncing +Barahona’s participation in the NH consecration and disassociating the diocese from his action.

David Handy+

[86] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-21-2010 at 10:26 AM · [top]

The Canadians have made their approval of the consecration apparent by their invitation to KJS to attend their Synod in June:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm/2010/5/18/Canadian-Anglicans-meet-for-national-meeting-in-Halifax-June-311

Let us note that the ACNS has yet to acknowledge that there was a consecration in LA last week, although there is info about the Dio of Rio Grande electing their new bishop.

[87] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-21-2010 at 10:26 AM · [top]

The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada is meeting in Halifax, June 3-11 under the theme Feeling the Winds of God - Charting a New Course.

It’s very windy in Canada this time of year.

[88] Posted by DaveW on 5-21-2010 at 10:34 AM · [top]

Okay, I have to ask… In part 2, about 1 minute in, as they start the actual procession, WHY is there a dog on a leash in the procession?  It looks to small to be a seeing eye dog.

[89] Posted by slanehill on 5-21-2010 at 12:12 PM · [top]

#93 “It’s very windy in Canada this time of year”

Yes…, “We’re not in Kansas anymore!”
Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: “You have no power here! Now begone”

[90] Posted by sandraoh on 5-21-2010 at 12:32 PM · [top]

Worth reading on this:

Commenter Philip Cole at Peter Ould’s place has posted some very interesting comments on smudging based on his experiences with South African peoples in ministry - these are obviously two distinct cultures, but his comments are nonetheless relevant as with smudging, we are dealing with ceremonies which relate to spiritual powers.  I’m not yet half-way through, will read the rest later, but thought I’d post it here: http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/05/20/if-you-wanted-any-proof-tec-has-apostasised

[91] Posted by Wilf on 5-21-2010 at 12:51 PM · [top]

Whatever happened to simple and dignified? Would someone please tell me what was going on just after the PB sat down after the Collect - there was a person running around shouting something while holding a sign, but I can’t make out what’s being said. I am hoping he was screaming something like ‘heretics!’. On the other hand, I’m afraid he is just another part of this stupid ceremony. Y’all remember the scene in the first Indiana Jones movie, near the end, where the guy’s face starts to melt off? I kept waiting for that to happen when the PB started with the Collect. As unkind as it is, I’m disappointed it didn’t.  angry

[92] Posted by lizzier on 5-21-2010 at 12:59 PM · [top]

Sorry to say the link to the service while opening in the media player did not stream content.  Is there another way to view this train wreck?

[93] Posted by centexn on 5-21-2010 at 01:41 PM · [top]

A couple of thoughts now that I’ve watched most parts of it:

1. I’d love to know the story of the Marine.  This event reeked so much of a political and sociological agenda that the wearing of the uniform is something that I would’ve questioned when I was in the Army.

2. Given that they tried earnestly to accommodate every conceivable culture and especially since Compton falls within the bounds of the Diocese of Los Angeles, one wonders where the Rap portion of the service was.  They could’ve got Diamond Dog to perform: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zem3kPHrwDo

[94] Posted by Drew on 5-21-2010 at 01:51 PM · [top]

DaveW (#93),

Yeah, it’s windy up in Nova Scotia all right.  As in the ACoC being “blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).

David Handy+

[95] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-21-2010 at 02:15 PM · [top]

revdon:

“we have our own set of pagan rituals we have created through the years even though we consider them sacred”

Most of those that we consider “sacred” have been converted (as-it-were)to focus on Jesus.  Listen to this drivel for a while - holy ancestors, “lived without sin”, Mother Earth and Father God, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Do I hear “Jesus” ....anyone?.... cue the crickets…

Smudge to represent the fire of the Holy Spirit coming upon us - sure!  Smudge to call the “spirits of all beings” (something like that) - ummm - no.
Dance for the joy of the Lord like David did (but with clothes on, please!)  Sure!  Dance to bring the rain or to glorify the earth - no.
Can you see the difference?  Evidently the DioLA doesn’t, nor does it care.  Jesus doesn’t matter any more there it seems - merely the spectacle and the false sentiments.

[96] Posted by GillianC on 5-21-2010 at 02:18 PM · [top]

Rama Lama,
The RCC recognizes that even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while, while not pretending the hog has sight. 

They do not presuppose a ‘divine spark’ in anyone other than Christ.

They have exorcists on hand to chase away what these folks invited in.

[97] Posted by Bo on 5-21-2010 at 02:32 PM · [top]

Soooooo, no one here can provide an alternate link to the consecration.

[98] Posted by centexn on 5-21-2010 at 03:16 PM · [top]

Wow.  Did they pass the pipe around too?  cool hmm

[99] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-21-2010 at 03:44 PM · [top]

I used to actually like Our God Is An Awesome God (part 2, 14mins in) at least, I like the proper version, not the pop version that they use but I think after this spectacle that song will ever be associated with this wierd multi-faith culture event.

[100] Posted by PaulStead on 5-21-2010 at 05:11 PM · [top]

I can hardly wait for the ensuing consecrations - Upper SC, DRG, etc.

[101] Posted by Charles III on 5-21-2010 at 05:51 PM · [top]

[102] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-21-2010 at 06:25 PM · [top]

108.  Yeah, Charles, you might see some Cherokee, Mohawk, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Menominee, or Seneca rituals, and if you’re in New England, some Wampanoag too!

[103] Posted by Cennydd on 5-21-2010 at 06:56 PM · [top]

Well, Sutton himself was consecrated decently and in order, modulo the gospel commentary and the pennants in the opening procession. My rather unkind observation is that, in the large, it looked all too much like a Roman Catholic festival mass.

[104] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-21-2010 at 07:19 PM · [top]

Buried deep within the writings of Ghent, Focault, and Courvisier you can find a raft of theological theory disguised as secular philosophy that accurately identifies and colates the movement that is so accurately exemplified by the ceremony observed in this video.

Being years since I read these philosophies, and due to their predictive nature, you can imagine my suprise when all they had pre-supposed came to light, all at once, in a ceremony that ostensibly elevates an Espicopal Bishop to her seat.

Throughout these readings, the technical term for those who follow this philosophy continually is referred to and for many years I admit freely that I failed to understand the significance of the name.

Having viewed the ceremony, all is now perfectly clear. 

The technical term for the adherents used in these writings is roughly, translated from the Yiddish,

“Whack-AH-Doo”. 

And yes, I made the rest of that up just to set you all up so I could call these insane miscreants who believe that what they participated in had ANYTHING with conveying the apostolic procession of St. Peter to a live person today out as really, really, whack-ah-doo’s.

It’s got me re-thinking my whole “going back in” strategy, I’ll tell you that.

KTF!...mrb

[105] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-21-2010 at 07:24 PM · [top]

Does all this nonsence mean that the ordinational are invalid?

[106] Posted by Nikolaus on 5-21-2010 at 08:59 PM · [top]

Sorry, that was supposed to be “apostolic succession”.  My bad….mrb

[107] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-21-2010 at 09:04 PM · [top]

Okay, I watched as much as I could - until it got to Bruno’s “sermon”.  Matt, you’re right about the fat white guys playing the pipes.  With one exception:  as a Scot, you can tell these guys are a Firefighter’s band - if they had any kind of theological background, they would have been playing “Amazing Grace” - not Scotland the Brave! (And I DO love Scotland the Brave, but it’s not very fitting at church!)

[108] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 5-21-2010 at 11:04 PM · [top]

Read over all the comments here. Very entertaining. I, for one, am very glad about the spectacle. I also enjoyed reading Peter Ould’s, If you wanted any proof TEC has apostasised… . (Is that a word?) We have more clarity of the TEClub’s apostasy.

[109] Posted by robroy on 5-22-2010 at 04:19 AM · [top]

[116] robroy,

Yes, apostasised is a word. Peter Ould+ has simply used the British spelling. We in the US would spell it apostasized. Remove the terminal “d” and you have its present tense, apostasise (apostasize).

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[110] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-22-2010 at 09:30 AM · [top]

.... and where was the other candidate to be consecrated?

[111] Posted by maineiac on 5-22-2010 at 09:59 AM · [top]

#118 “.... and where was the other candidate to be consecrated?”
‘Fraid she drew the short straw and got sidelined I am sorry to say.  But in any event any link to a Christian liturgy or event seemed entirely peripheral.  No real attempt to include any recognisable Christian theme.  They were so busy summoning all spirits but the Holy Spirit, invoking all gods but God, and proclaiming their gay bishop that the other one got pushed aside.

I don’t suppose they spent all that money and made all that fuss for an ordinary bishop - even if very few turned up? 

I watched it complete yesterday.  I was put in mind of the Queen of Narnia, having summoned all the monstrous legions, then presiding over the Stone Table with Aslan bound on it.  Grotesque and chilling.

[112] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 5-22-2010 at 10:46 AM · [top]

Please oh please, meriful Lord, let not the loin cloths catch on as liturgical wear within TEC. (Don’t believe me? Check around the 17-minute mark on the video).

[113] Posted by Anglicat on 5-22-2010 at 11:07 AM · [top]

#120

Lord, hear our prayer.

[114] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-22-2010 at 11:15 AM · [top]

Can’t help but wish it were David Booth Beers singing “All My Trials, Lord, Soon Be Over” at the 38-minute point. Hard to figure how this particular song fit the occasion….

[115] Posted by Anglicat on 5-22-2010 at 11:35 AM · [top]

There was another candidate?!  She must be sexually normative to be so ignored.  Or theologically “conservative” except on holy orders - or so close to “traditional” that her mere presence would chase away the demons participatory.

[116] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-22-2010 at 11:35 AM · [top]

Just one last comment about this liturgy (exact quote from the sermon):  “Come to the altar. Be refreshed by the presence of inclusion.” To all those who predicted that inclusion would become TEC’s ultimate telos—we are there.

[117] Posted by Anglicat on 5-22-2010 at 12:12 PM · [top]

Need a new thread, but the first ballot in Utah just went up…website is here http://www.episcopal-ut.org/bishop_election

[118] Posted by Anglican Presbyter on 5-22-2010 at 12:20 PM · [top]

Looks like Sulerud has withdrawn, which makes the second ballot potentially decisive (20 clergy and 65 laity needed to elect).  If all of those swing to Barlowe, things will get interesting…

[119] Posted by frdarin on 5-22-2010 at 12:28 PM · [top]

[120] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-22-2010 at 12:37 PM · [top]

RE: “Please oh please, meriful Lord, let not the loin cloths catch on as liturgical wear within TEC. (Don’t believe me? Check around the 17-minute mark on the video . . . “

Anglicat, what on earth are you talking about?

It seems to me that The Real SIGN of INCLUSION would be for loin cloths to be the first alternate option for liturgical wear for Episcopal Clergy.

And to signify its gender equality, both males and females could wear loin cloths as liturgical garb—this would put both genders on the same level, so to speak, and demonstrate that TEC is no longer influenced by the Semitic Primitivist Patriarchal ethos that has so long held the Christa faith in bondage.

[121] Posted by Sarah on 5-22-2010 at 01:49 PM · [top]

We have moved one inch closer to the End Game: 
“Let the wicked be wicked still.”
Marana Tha!

[122] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 5-22-2010 at 02:27 PM · [top]

My computer keeps stopping the video and starting over at the beginning.  Maybe I should be grateful for this.  An image, once seen, cannot be erased!

[123] Posted by laudlady on 5-22-2010 at 06:38 PM · [top]

#14: Festivus
Wow!  *My* experience is really augmented when I viewed the ‘I am Episcopalian’ clip with the cacophony of the drumming still on in another window in the background.
  (heh, heh *snicker*....sNoRt)

[124] Posted by anglicanlutenist on 5-22-2010 at 08:41 PM · [top]

...and as far as that Ecclesiastical Processional was concerned….
  MY KINGDOM for a Darth Vadar Costume and a sidedoor.

[125] Posted by anglicanlutenist on 5-22-2010 at 08:52 PM · [top]

Is a Golden Calf part of this ceremony?

[126] Posted by Betty See on 5-22-2010 at 10:02 PM · [top]

No, they had a Katie-Crow instead!
Pax

[127] Posted by r3ussell on 5-22-2010 at 10:11 PM · [top]

[132] anglicanlutenist

MY KINGDOM for a Darth Vadar Costume and a sidedoor.

They would have noticed you right away, and cast you out.  Darth Vader is an intolerant, exclusivist Sith Lord.  After all, only a Sith would believe in absolutes.

carl

[128] Posted by carl on 5-22-2010 at 11:14 PM · [top]

... and a mouth-breather.

[129] Posted by anglicanlutenist on 5-23-2010 at 07:42 AM · [top]

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/darthVader.shtml
Darth is busy with/at The Episcopal Church on the other coast.

[130] Posted by AuroraBee on 5-23-2010 at 12:42 PM · [top]

OK, second part. Did I hear right? The ragtag childrens’ choir was better and less ragtag than the adult choir? This is an Episcopalian event of some sort, right?

[131] Posted by nEpiscompoup on 5-23-2010 at 01:09 PM · [top]

I would guess it is so that Jesus is the fulfillment of all old beliefs. But then they are all “old beliefs” now and best left behind us and no longer celebrated.

[132] Posted by helpmelord on 5-23-2010 at 01:57 PM · [top]

Still have another hour to watch the whole thing but only 55 bishops gave consent to Glasspool against 80 bishops for Bruce. Not exactly a clear progressive signal but then again it really doesn’t matter.

[133] Posted by martin5 on 5-23-2010 at 10:12 PM · [top]

If the Episcopal Church chooses to continue to recognize - and permit to officiate as such - a bishop deposed by the Anglican Church of Uganda, does that serve to void any objection to the Ugandan church continuing to recognize a bishop deposed by the Episcopal Church.  Seems to me that one sign of communion is mutual recognition of ministry.

[134] Posted by TomRightmyer on 5-24-2010 at 12:52 AM · [top]

What was this ?? AHH the final of a long slide to oblivion???
Then to add the final indignity . “consecrate her as a bishop in the one holy Catholic and apastolic Church”
What ???  How can you even invoke that phrase at a farce like this ??This was supposed to be a solem religious celebration.Alas I realise that in those present christianity was not foremost in their reason for attendance .  You would not have had to have a broadway show to entertain the Masses if it was a solem Christian ritual. Which I notice stayed away in droves .
  AHHH bring on the wicca celebrations . AHH the great mother god .
  Excuse me what happenned to God the Father ?? Oh I forgot that is no longer relevant . The bible is now being reinterpreted /rewritten by the new ager /reformation.  HMM Did I see Satan Dancing front of the altar . OHHH what a party he must have thrown in Hell that day .

[135] Posted by ewhalley on 5-24-2010 at 01:26 AM · [top]

“OHHH what a party he must have thrown in Hell that day.”
He and his minions left Hell that day and participated on stage.

[136] Posted by iambutone on 5-24-2010 at 06:42 AM · [top]

For some reason unfathomable to me, everytime I check this thread the d**n video starts playing and I must exit.  Ist der eine problem oder ist der a evil ghost in my komputor?

[137] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-24-2010 at 07:47 AM · [top]

141 - Tom, MUST you be so picky?
You realize you’re now on The List To Be Deposed, Hung, Drawn and Quartered?  (never mind the old ‘hear, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digesting of Scripture, much more impt what we do to our ordained types.)

[138] Posted by maineiac on 5-24-2010 at 08:05 AM · [top]

Looking at the pictures of Mary Glasspool’s ordination, I am left with the firm impression that it is just a bunch of women dressed up in pretty clothes play-acting like they are clergy.  But that has been my impression of the entire Episcopal Church, male and female, for many years.  All show and glitter—no belief (except that anything goes)—as Robin Williams said, “All of the pageantry - none of the guilt.”
In 1897, Pope Leo XIII said that Anglican orders are not valid—they are form without substance.  The Episcopal Church in the United States seems determined to prove Leo right!

[139] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 08:41 AM · [top]

According to TEC, bishop “Senyonyo” is a “retired Ugandan bishop”.
“About 30 bishops, including the Rt. Rev. Martin DeJesus Barahona of El Salvador and retired Ugandan bishop Christopher Senyonjo, attended the service.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122244_ENG_HTM.htm
But I assume he is one and the same as the deposed bishop “Ssenyonjo” mentioned here:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/14891/

I understand that some years ago, Uganda also deposed a bishop for bigamy.  He would be the next logical bishop to bring into the TEC fold.

[140] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-24-2010 at 08:46 AM · [top]

And who was Leo XIII to say whose orders are valid?  Only God can say that….and the last I heard, Catholic popes aren’t God.

[141] Posted by Cennydd on 5-24-2010 at 08:49 AM · [top]

I’ve not been able to get the original link or the offered at 102 to work.  Everyone’s able to see the train-wreck but me!

[142] Posted by Lakewood on 5-24-2010 at 09:45 AM · [top]

I can’t watch either.
It may be a blessing.

[143] Posted by Bo on 5-24-2010 at 09:56 AM · [top]

And who was Leo XIII to say whose orders are valid?  Only God can say that….and the last I heard, Catholic popes aren’t God.
HMM
  Well he is Christ’s vicar on earth .The Roman Catholic church has never strayed from the Apostolic tradirion and Magesterium of the church .As my own priesat said recently in a homily there may hasver been some bad popes but they never tamperfed with the teaching of the church. Alas had there been this authority would the Anglican church have ever got to this point ?? So in that respect Pope Leo xiii was absolutely right . Proof is in the pudding . Watch the video above . Then say the Holy Father was not right .Ahh this fall A lot of anglicans will rejoin the Roman Catholic Church . Are they not seeing the truth??
Retuirnning to and accepting the apostolic tradition . Appostolic treadition is the authority of the church This coming from the oral teaching of the apostles .Not the abomination of the new /reformation agers preach . What we are looking at is the definition of Heresy. This what the Roman Catholic church does . It is there to guide on all maters regarding faith and morals .You can have differences ,quesrtion . The priests and bishops have the apostolic tradition and magesterium to guide them . You can then remove yourself from the church if you do not like the truth or if you do it publicaly then excomunication happens . This can be undone by returnning to the faith admitting your error .This has happened many times .
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting three Anglo Catholic priests . They are looking foreward to their re ordination in October . They called over a fourth He was their Bishop .This was at a pro life march in Victoria B.C.
HMMM   and the anglican diocise of Victoria recently closed five churches .
The dash for oblivion is on .The story I read recently was that the TEC would cease to exist by 2050 . I think sooner . So who gets the money for the properties in the end .
It will obviously be the Gay rights groups who control the TEC

[144] Posted by ewhalley on 5-24-2010 at 10:33 AM · [top]

[139] Apocalypse,

One minor correction. The date of the Papal bull which to which you refer (Apostolicae curiae) is September 18, 1896, rather than 1897.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[145] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-24-2010 at 10:45 AM · [top]

Appostolic treadition

ewhaley…your comments made me sic.

As in “treading all over it”? Where is papal infallibility in the Scriptures or in the tradition of the church until well after the Reformation? Where is the immaculate conception or the bodily assumption of Mary in the same?

They haven’t kept the faith any purer than TEC. There are two ways to destroy the apostolic deposit: 1) deny it piece by piece, replacing it with your own made up garbage (cf. TEc); 2) ignore it piece by piece, adding on so many accretions that you can’t possibly pay attention to the core for all the peripherals!

[146] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 11:04 AM · [top]

[145] H. Potter:
Thanks for the correction.  I was not necessarily defending the Pope, but ceremonies like these allow him to say that, without him, the Episcopal church will drift into apostasy.
The issue in 1896 was over the change made by the Edwardine missal in the late 1540’s.  It was corrected in 1662, but by that time, anyone validly ordained under the pre-Edwardine procedure was dead, and no longer able to transmit valid ordination.  At least that is the Pope’s argument.

[147] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 11:08 AM · [top]

FrChris [146] makes an excellent point.

[148] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 11:10 AM · [top]

#148 No he doesn’t.

It appears to me that FrChris is saying that the Roman Catholic Church has destroyed the Apostolic deposit.  Can he demonstrate this? 

To the contrary, the Apostolic deposit stands today, regardless of what he belives the Roman Catholic Church has done to destroy it, and despite the efforts of the not only the Episcopal Church, but also much of the rest of the Anglican Communion to do precisely that.  Only a very tiny minority within Anglicanism is interested in preserving the Apostolic deposit.

[149] Posted by DaveW on 5-24-2010 at 11:42 AM · [top]

Boy those folks at the LA Intercultural Festival must have been surprised when their venue was overtaken by a bunch of mostly middle aged white folks holding an Episcopal consecration.  grin

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.  ~Rodney Dangerfield

Peace,
-ms

[150] Posted by miserable sinner on 5-24-2010 at 11:48 AM · [top]

ewhaley…your comments made me sic
Hmmph the TEC is sick . The above video is proof .
Papal infallibility . One has to truly understand what papal infallibility is . It is not given off hand but a process which can take years . The holy father deals with current problems . Develops ideaes on how to deal with them he submitts them to the bishops . They coment on them . The final document is produced . Hmmph no history
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MIRINFAL.HTM
Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, “Peter has spoken through Leo”—and accepted it unhesitatingly.
next
Where is the immaculate conception.
Alas it is in scripture
So get out your bible go to Luke Chapter one verse 26-38
For further understanding
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
next
the bodily assumption of Mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
The assumption of mary is not in the Gospel as the gospel is about the teaching of our Savior

[151] Posted by ewhalley on 5-24-2010 at 11:57 AM · [top]

[151] ewhalley

Tell your priest that you’re confusing the immaculate conception with the Annunciation of Our Lord and His conception / Virgin Birth. See how many Hail Marys and Our Holy Father’s he gives you.

[152] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 12:28 PM · [top]

In the beginning of the second part they have a Chinese girl with tiger characters up on stage. You have to wonder, what part of this is Episcopal ... Later they have the choir with an organ but at that point it seems out of place. Bruno’s sermon is equally bad, the part I could listen to.  Thw whole thing was more like a Broadway production, not a religious service.

[153] Posted by martin5 on 5-24-2010 at 12:40 PM · [top]

[151] ewhalley
If you’ll check Acts 6:8, in the DR, you’ll find Stephen was full of Grace and Fortitude, yet I don’t hear any claims that the passage supports his immaculate conception….

The ‘added on bits’ are plentiful, and some are repugnant to the Scriptures.  “Sinless Mary (not even birthright sin)’ among them.

[154] Posted by Bo on 5-24-2010 at 01:04 PM · [top]

Tell your priest that you’re confusing the immaculate conception with the Annunciation of Our Lord and His conception / Virgin Birth
OHHH come on they are all part of the same .read the websites . Read St luke where the blessed mary proclaims her verginity . A basic tenant of Christian belief . The immaculate conception is part of this .
The separtion that some so badly want from Catholic truth is sad . Alas this chest beating . We are democratic . We are so much better . Well this is what precipitated the above . Faith is not democratic . You believe or you do not .
I am but a simple follower of Jesus Christ of the Roman catholic tradition . I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior do you ?I accept the Apostolic tradition as handed down by the Catholic church . The magesterium that is based upon this .
Many of your breterin now run to this truth.
Trying the above coment is self defeating

[155] Posted by ewhalley on 5-24-2010 at 01:17 PM · [top]

Read St luke where the blessed mary proclaims her verginity . A basic tenant of Christian belief . The immaculate conception is part of this .Read St luke where the blessed mary proclaims her verginity . A basic tenant of Christian belief . The immaculate conception is part of this .


Look…I’m an AngloCatholic. I know nuns who actually are perpetual virgins. I can tell you that they were not born immaculately.

I am but a simple follower of Jesus Christ of the Roman catholic tradition .

From the horse’s mouth. The Jesus of the RCC is a glowering meanie who is so awful and unapproachable that you have to go through his mother. No thanks. I’ll take the Biblical Jesus - testified to by the Church throughout all ages and around the world (with whom the local ordinary of Rome has more often than not agreed with) any day.

[156] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 01:28 PM · [top]

[154] Right on…sinless indeed. We all know that only the Native Americans lived for thousands of years on this land “without sin” - at least according to whats-his-name at the party in LA.

[157] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 01:29 PM · [top]

As others have pointed out, the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are two different things.  The former relates to the conception and birth of Jesus, while the latter holds that Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.  The dogma was formally defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.  The theory behind the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus could have been born except to a person preserved from the stain of all sin, both original and actual.
Scriptural support offered for the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception includes Genesis 3:15, in which God tells the serpent that He will put enmity between the serpent and woman.  It’s a stretch, I know, but when that’s all you’ve got . . .
Interestingly, the Eastern Catholic church, which is in full communion with Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox, do not subscribe to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, although the former group does not make a big deal about its disagreement, so as not to jeopardize its communion.

[158] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 01:35 PM · [top]

Errata in [158]:
The theory behind the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus could NOT have been born except to a person preserved from the stain of all sin, both original and actual.
Sorry for the typo.

[159] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 01:37 PM · [top]

[147] Apocalypse,

As a Catholic, I understand what you were saying and agree with your point, although I would state it in a slightly different form, adding that it is the Pope in communion with the other Bishops of the Church, in other words, it is the magisterium (in its three senses) of the Church.

In fact, when I experienced the revelation that answered my prayers for direction and guidance, the realization that the Catholic Church is protected from heresy through the magisterium while the Anglican Church is not similarly protected, was a key element of the understanding that was granted me.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[160] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-24-2010 at 02:30 PM · [top]

[156] FrChris,

You wrote

The Jesus of the RCC is a glowering meanie who is so awful and unapproachable that you have to go through his mother.

I say the following in all charity. If you actually believe what you wrote that I have quoted, then your knowledge of the Catholic Church is less than was mine before I began catechetical instruction (RCIA) there in September 2008. I know neither where, when, nor how you acquired the view which you communicated in that sentence, but I do know, with concrete and absolute certainty, that your understanding of what the Church teaches about Jesus and Mary could not be further from the truth.

If you have specific sources that you would care to quote, I would be pleased to provide you with the reality of what the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims about Jesus and about our asking his mother to intercede for us. In fact, the oft-quoted canard that “Catholics pray to the saints,” which literally quotes the words which some Catholics use to refer to asking the intercessions of the saints, doesn’t mean pray in the sense that using the same word in the context of praying to the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit means. As a convert to Catholicism, I am in the minority who realize what confusion such imprecise (in fact anachronistic usage, if I may ‘pray’ your indulgence) conveys to dyed-in-the-wool Protestants when they hear us Catholics state it that way, Which is why I don’t use that expression within earshot of non-Catholics.

If you still don’t understand that, I will be pleased to elaborate. All I would ask, inasmuch as you self-identified as an “AngloCatholic” is that you tell me, with some considerable specificity,  (a) how you understand your professed belief in “the communion of saints” and (b) what your understanding is of what occurs in a sacrament, especially in the Eucharist.

I ask the latter, because you sound somewhat like my late mother, who left the Catholic Church for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in 1942 when she married my (LCMS) father, and never saw the transformation in the teachings of the Church that came out of the Second Vatican Council.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[161] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-24-2010 at 02:51 PM · [top]

Keith,

I get all my information from reliable, well-vetted sources like True Catholic and Jack Chick.

I’m glad you got direct revelation from God that the Roman Church is the only true church left. I wonder why the Spirit forgot to tell the Eastern Churches for the last 1000 years?

[162] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 03:24 PM · [top]

OHH giggle
Look…I’m an AngloCatholic. I know nuns who actually are perpetual virgins. I can tell you that they were not born immaculately.
  I am trying not to laugh .
  We are discussing our savior annuciation of our savior and how its part of the immaculate conception. So where do Nuns fit into this ?
An Anglo Catholic would embrace the immaculate conception .
I have met many . I will meet many more after October . In my state I will be making presentations at the new parishes for the Knights of Columbus. They will then qualify as they will be the 28th brabch of the Roman Catholic Church. In my duties with the Knights of
Columbus at the major degrees The vast mjority of converts are former Anglican /episcopalian. They proudly declare now that they are anglo/catholic .Looking joyfullly to coming back to the Holy See
From the horse’s mouth. The Jesus of the RCC is a glowering meanie who is so awful and unapproachable that you have to go through his mother
  OHHH please I am trying to contain myself . You obviously have no understanding of Catholicism . I have met several like you . They make statements that they know all about the Roman Catholic Church . OHH really . Tell me . “Well I read an article ” Then what follows generally is ludicrous .
Mary is the mother of the Devil .We worship her (OHHH Giggle)
  So you say you are Anglo Catholic . Well then you know and believe in the Apostles creed .  ” intercession of the Saints” We say Mary and the Saints . We pray constantly to the trinity . We ask for intercession of the saints and our blessed mother for specific reasons .I led a rosary last year at the end I said the memorae . This is asking for our blessed mother to intercede go too her son(Jesus ). Do you know him??
Well it precipitated a miracle .(under basic examination)This was for a brother knight He Had COPD brought on by asbestos exposure. At the time of the Rosary he was in intensive sare . He slipped into a coma .His family was told to prepare for the worst .Ihad just hoped that his family would be strengthened .
  Well a day later he came out of the coma . He then went to a general ward then home to his Family . He was told he would need a double lung transplant . He was on constant oxygen. A month ago he came to our weekly coffee on his bike and no oxygen .
I am nothing more than so humbled .She heard my plea .  went to her son our savior . We do not know or understand why only certain pleas are heard . We ask for intercession by the saints but it is only through God that this happens .
So I ask you to start to study and understand Catholic beliefs .
So I will give you one final Comment
I use this and witness with it .
“all followers of Jesus Christ Are going to Heaven .God can sort out the politics “
This was given to me by a employer ,friend &spiritual; advisor who is Pentacostal.I will witness and take this to my Grave .  Jesus is a god of love and forgivness . Your coments about meaness have no place in christian brotherhood

[163] Posted by ewhalley on 5-24-2010 at 03:35 PM · [top]

By way of full disclosure, I am a Ukranian (Byzantine Rite) Catholic.  We are Catholic and in communion with the Pope, but we are not Roman Catholic, and we are not Orthodox (though our litury is similar to theirs).  And no, Ukrainians are not Russians!!!  Ukrainian Catholics have been in communion with the Pope since 1596, pursuant to the Union of Brest, and while we adhere to him on matters of faith and morals, we follow our own litury and discipline.  For example, Ukranian Catholics ordain married men to the clergy.  In Ukraine, the church follows the Julian Calendar for liturgical purposes, but in the United States and Canada, most adhere to the Gregorian Calendar.
Leaving aside Henry VIII’s marital problems, I can certainly see his point regarding the need for a lessening of control by Rome, and it is too bad there could not have been an Anglican Rite within the Universal Catholic Church.  Hopefully that may come yet.

[164] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 03:37 PM · [top]

AngloCatholicism is not AngloRomanism or AngloPapalism. I’m a Dearmer man, myself.

[165] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 03:53 PM · [top]

Well, Fr. Chris, that does explain a lot, to those of us who ARE Anglo Catholics.  You know, the old fashioned kind- Newman, Pusey, the Rule of St. Vincent, followers of bishops and priests in FiF and SSC.  We may be dinosaurs, but we are still around.  Careful how you use our name, you’ll wear it out.

And yes, your friends the “True Catholics” have their own “Avignon papacy” but I would not be going to them for true and unbiased opinion of the Catholic Church.

One of the goals of Anglo Catholicism is to reunite the Church.  Clearly, the goal of affirming catholicism is to borrow the liturgy and ceremony, and leave the inconvenient theology by the wayside.

[166] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-24-2010 at 04:12 PM · [top]

#160

As a Catholic

Congratulations

[167] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 5-24-2010 at 04:14 PM · [top]

AngloCatholicism is not AngloRomanism or AngloPapalism.

I am glad to hear that, although many self-professed Anglo-Catholics I have met do not seem to know the difference.  They seem to think that to be A-C is to believe all Roman doctrine except the primacy of the Pope and all Roman customs except the requirement that priests be celibate.

I am definitely Protestant; I believe that the Reformation corrected both the doctrine and many of the corrupt practices of Rome.  In effect, the Reformation recovered catholic (or Apostolic) doctrine.  I will admit that on secondary questions such as church government it may not have done so as accurately as one might wish - but on the core question of our relationship to God and how it may be restored, the Reformation recovered the teachings of the Apostles as found in Scripture. I also believe that the Reformation recovered a biblical understanding of the sacraments and their nature.

Those two statements may generate a few replies….

Regarding the invocation of the saints - one reason I reject it (besides it not being taught in Scripture, either directly or by example) is that the saints are now with Jesus, and it is to him that their attention is directed.  Furthermore, not being divine, they are not omnipresent.  How could Mary hear the requests of tens of thousands of supplicants all at once, from all over the globe?  It seems to me that to have a teaching of universal access to the saints requires major assumptions about the nature of those who have gone to be with the Lord that are unsupported by the teachings of the Bible, and which do not mesh well with what we are told about the state of departed believers.

[168] Posted by AnglicanXn on 5-24-2010 at 04:17 PM · [top]

FrChris,

You are attributing to me, a statement I have not made. It isn’t even clearly implied in what I wrote. I did not assert that God led me to the Catholic Church because it was “the only true church left.” Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the principal source to which I repair when I have a question, does not make that assertion. It does assert that

“The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor bishops in communion with him.”, [¶ 816]

You will note that this does not assert that it subsists only in the Catholic Church. Further, it states [emphasis mine]

“in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”, [¶ 817]

and, finally, [again, emphasis mine]

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” [¶ 819]

Ergo, if I am to consider myself a faithful Catholic and you profess Christ and him crucified as The Way, The Truth and The Life, I am duty bound to accord you recognition as my brother in Christ. To ensure that I am conforming myself to what my Lord desires of me, I prefer to use the official sources (such as the CCC quoted above) and to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what I read in Holy Scripture and what I hear from our priests, bishops and the Bishop of Rome in light of what the CCC teaches. In charity, I can only assume that the two links in your comment were intended as an ironic gesture.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[169] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-24-2010 at 04:24 PM · [top]

[166] TJ - surely you of all people caught that. If we have lost our sense of humor, there’s little hope for retaining any distinctly Anglican identity in world-wide catholicism.

[169] Your exact words:

when I experienced the revelation

Not “came to the realization” but you claimed revealed truth.
And yes, Keith, you had the sense of the links aright.

AngloCatholicism began as Prayer Book Catholicism (or Old High Churchmanship). It needn’t tack on Roman accretions (either in liturgy or theology) - but simply live out the faith preserved for us in the Scriptures, the Anglican formularies, and in the continued presence of apostolic ministry.

[170] Posted by FrChris on 5-24-2010 at 04:35 PM · [top]

Sorry Fr. Chris, maybe it is a bad day for me. 
Were you being ironic when you linked the “True Catholic Church” or when you claimed membership in an Affirming Catholic organization? (the only “Dearmer” men and women I know are part of the Dearmer Society linked to the SCP- the affirming catholic “equivalent” of the SSC) Or both?

If I am misreading your sense of humor, well, churchwise, other than the nominations in Springfield, it has been a lousy couple of weeks.  I have no idea if you are a “Fr. Chris” I would know, or some other Fr. Chris.  The local parish once introduced a priest to me as “a real Anglo Catholic, she uses incense and everything.”  Perhaps I am too defensive.

If you are one of the good guys, having me on, I apologize.

[171] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-24-2010 at 04:48 PM · [top]

Friends, for some reason this thread has drifted into an entirely off-topic string of comments about Rome and AngloCatholicism.

I’ll be going through and deleting comments and carefully discerning whom to ban, since we’re not doing warnings right now.

Please CEASE discussion on this thread of anything but “Mother earth, pagan rituals, ancestor worship, dancing girls—the consecration of Mary Glasspool.”


Thanks.

[172] Posted by Sarah on 5-24-2010 at 04:57 PM · [top]

Cennydd -
  “Who is Leo XIII to say whose orders are invalid?”  When did it become unacceptable for the pope to state what the Catholic Church teaches?  You, and anyone else, are free to disagree (I know Anglicans who do not believe Mary Glasspool’s ordination is not valid, and those Anglicans make no claim to be God). 
Fr. Chris -
  No, ewhalley is not confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Annunciation.  He is referring to the phrase “full of grace” in the greeting of the archangel. You, of course, are free to disagree, and even to believe that the Catholic Church believes Jesus is a “glowering meanie,” but that sounds more like ridicule than a rational argument, as does the question “...how many Hail Marys and Our Holy Father’s (what exactly is an ‘Our Holy Father’?) he gives you.”  As any other Church, the Catholic Church is free to state its doctrine; people are free to accept it or reject it, as is true regarding any Church’s doctrine.  I have been a Catholic for all 63 years of my life; I cannot remember ridiculing the sincerely-held beliefs of any other religions.  Disagree: yes.  Discuss and debate: most certainly.  Try to convert?  Absoluterly.  But sartcastic ridicule says, I believe, more about the speaker than about what is spoken about.

[173] Posted by Father Bob on 5-24-2010 at 05:01 PM · [top]

Sorry if I offended anyone.  I will leave the group voluntarily.

[174] Posted by Apocalypse on 5-24-2010 at 07:57 PM · [top]

What an extraordinary video…

[175] Posted by MichaelA on 5-24-2010 at 09:03 PM · [top]

What an educational video this is.. I had no idea the American Indians founded the Anglican Church.

[176] Posted by bradhutt on 5-25-2010 at 04:05 AM · [top]

[176] Under the auspices of the 1662 BCP, where else were they going to find people sinless enough to found the church?

CLL+
Louisville Anglican Prayer Fellowship

[177] Posted by FrChris on 5-25-2010 at 06:51 AM · [top]

Well I for one am shocked that there’s nothing from ABC yet.

Nothing.

Silence.

[178] Posted by poultond on 5-25-2010 at 11:19 AM · [top]

There have been rumors that he’s preparing a statement, but that’s all they are:  RUMORS.

[179] Posted by Cennydd on 5-25-2010 at 12:16 PM · [top]

Once again, as at the Investiture of Mrs. Schori, the Episcopal “church” is clearly showing its disregard for the sacredness of the Incarnate Truth,  the Bible and its teaching,  and the uniqueness of Christianity.
The witchdoctors’ invocation of some unknown spirit (certainly not The Holy Spirit that was present at Creation) at any Christian event/service (at an episcopate ordination, nonetheless) is an ABOMINATION. Pure and simple. THEIR (TEC) WORLD IS NOW UPSIDE DOWN AND INSIDE OUT!
I watched and listened to this rubbish with great heartbreak. How any Christian present at this sacrilege sat through this abomination and did not get up and leave beats me.
Here we have some witchdoctors and their acolytes mix and mingle their spirituality and paganism with Christianity, and you have “Christians” in the audience applauding, and a bishop submitting himself to some “cleansing” by a witchdoctor. Plus some lecture to the audience (and the world) about how they and their ancestors “lived here without sin” (obviously implying that Christianity is a false religion – unlike their “pure” native religion).
Think of this: if this were an episcopate ordination in the heart of Africa (say, in the Anglican Church in Nigeria) and some tribal witchdoctors did something similar to this Californian madness, what would the rest of the Anglican Church be saying to the Africans and their “evil and dark” religion.
I am still wondering why and how one (any true/orthodox and faithful believer in TEc) spiritually handles this.
I think God is allowing TEc to live out their sinfulness to the fullest and in openness – thereby helping the faithful make some important decision regarding their church. The painful truth is that TEc and the silent, and lukewarm pew-sitters may be taking the “silence” of God as an acceptance – or worse than that, as a sign of God’s impotence.
But let the world know this: The LORD does not take kindly to this sort of blatant disgrace to His Glory
May the Lord have mercy on those who ask for His grace,  and seek His face; those who are desiring to genuinely walk in His path.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
St. Philip-the-Apostle Anglican Church
Arlington, TX

[180] Posted by Spiro on 5-25-2010 at 12:18 PM · [top]

Cennydd:

N.T. Wright has been wrong before about Rowan Williams’ actions, but he had this to say in his recent address to his diocesan synod:

And that, too, is why recent events in America are placing an ever greater strain on the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I believe, in the process of writing a pastoral letter to all the churches, and I don’t want to pre-empt what he will say.

At this point, in order to retain (or I should say reGAIN) a shred of credibility, RW will need to make a dramatic statement that includes definitive action (at minimum I think he would need to exercise his invitational perogative to tell TEC and ACoC representatives to stay home from the ACC and Primates’ Meetings, and from any Anglican Communion task forces, working groups, committees, etc.).

[181] Posted by jamesw on 5-25-2010 at 12:51 PM · [top]

Something that I haven’t noticed anyone here pick up on yet, is that the “smudge” lady is no more representative of Native American spirituality than J. S. Spong is of Christianity.  It may help to know that there are probably more than a few Native Americans that are just as embarrassed by this mockery of their own culture as readers here have been of their Christian faith. 

Sadly, the pattern that one sees in TEC of picking/choosing and making it up as you go also extends to TEC’s treatment of other cultures and spiritual practices as well.  If TEC were truly committed to respecting and integrating Native American spirituality into church services than they would be reviving the Sun Dance.

[182] Posted by wildiris on 5-25-2010 at 01:15 PM · [top]

also adding to #182:  the first thing that struck me was the NA woman actually touching Bruno’s body with the eagle feather. I have worked with a number of Native American kids and have been to Pow-wows.  No REAL NA would allow an eagle feather touch a white person. At least in NH and the Canadian maritimes, by law only a First Nations person is allowed to possess an eagle feather. So, I guess this woman must have been baptized, so it was okay for her to misuse the feather.

[183] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 5-25-2010 at 01:44 PM · [top]

Was the footage shown here part of the actual ordination ceremony, or was this some sort of weird pre-game show? I can’t figure out where this would have taken place, had it been in a real liturgy.

[184] Posted by Archer_of_the_Forest on 5-25-2010 at 02:12 PM · [top]

Remember Matthew 5:43… Remember Matthew 5:43

I watched it all.  My first impression is that the Bishops look sort of overdressed next to the drummers and lions.  Then I wonder why the ladies on the left and right of the PB didn’t wear their miters?

After that, I didn’t really object to the multi-cultural fanfare, although it occurs to me that the Church, herself, has a very real culture and it was hardly celebrated at all. But what was really difficult was hearing the promises, the creeds, the affirmations and knowing what I know about crossed fingers and the cafeteria approach to TEC.  It made my fingers tingle.  And then I remember that I am commanded to love all these folks and they are commanded to love me.  I’m just glad that the Lord has seen to it to give us all a place from which to love each other.  How saintly I am!  Yes, well, then I sneer and glare and say “there are the people who hijacked by beloved church, all in one place.”  In short, I am conflicted.

I’ll try and stick with point one rather than descend too regularly into point two.  But it’s a challenge.

[185] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 5-25-2010 at 02:53 PM · [top]

Naked savages…. hmmm…. and who’s that lady that brought the dog???

Appalling in its pompous ridiculousity… it’s like a high-school production of “The Olympic Opening Ceremonies”

[186] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 5-25-2010 at 02:59 PM · [top]

We must be charitable to all people…that’s true. Non-judgmental. But when it comes to two things - erroneous doctrine and church officers - we are not to be lax. This is a solid Anglican principal and has been included in all ordinals up until the 1979 wreck.
From the 1928 Ordinal for Presbyters:

  Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
  Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
  Bishop. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
  Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.

Were there any presbyters there who took that vow seriously?

  Bishop. Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?
  Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.
  Bishop. Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; that you may show yourself in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?
  Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.

Were there any bishops there?

It seems to me that the problems didn’t begin with homosexual consecration but with a loss of nerve among presbyters and bishops to live up to their vows. It started before Pike, continued through Spong, and resulted in VRG and Glasspool.

God help us all live up to our vows!

[187] Posted by FrChris on 5-25-2010 at 03:11 PM · [top]

#184 - Apparently, the latter. From what I see, personalities & presenting controversy notwithstanding, other than the protester at 43:20, at a pretty ordinary prayer book consecration service breaks out at 35:45 into the second tape.  Hence, my lame joke above.

Peace,
-ms

[188] Posted by miserable sinner on 5-25-2010 at 03:28 PM · [top]

To help unscramble it all.  Here’s the link for the PDF of the service leaflet.  http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/310/Consecration_Liturgy_Program.pdf

Peace,
-ms

[189] Posted by miserable sinner on 5-25-2010 at 04:05 PM · [top]

185:  GGM I think those ladies were deacons based on how their stoles are positioned - no miters for them.

[190] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 5-25-2010 at 05:14 PM · [top]

Watched the whole thing.  Very sobering to watch.  This wasn’t just a “consecration”, this was the official death of Anglicanism in TEC and the official birth of TEC’s independence from the Communion, Anglican or otherwise.  Dressing it up with expensive vestments and slinging lots of incense doesn’t change that. 


Get the “inclusive” theme, agree with the Olympics comments.  It was entertaining like watching a play.  Then the irony of hearing the PB say the Nicene Creed and the rest of the service was surreal in the context of what they were doing was sobering.

+Schori’s voice still gives me chills down my spine.

[191] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 5-25-2010 at 05:25 PM · [top]

The link for the video of the consecration is dead.
Peter Dewberry
http://www.free-inside.com

[192] Posted by Peter Dewberry on 5-26-2010 at 06:34 PM · [top]

Lakeland Two,
There is only so much indignity that the Queen of England should be made to bear for her Church and I fear that if she “watched the whole thing” as you did, she would also find this “consecration” or installation “Very sobering to watch”.

[193] Posted by Betty See on 6-3-2010 at 06:36 PM · [top]

Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies from the Nutcracker Suite

This lady is no more a bishop now than she was a priest before this mockery took place.

[194] Posted by GB on 2-19-2011 at 08:26 PM · [top]

187…
I think you are right about vows not being taken seriously. Also, when the Baptismal Covenant is cited, it should be cited in full, and not exclusively the part about diversity and respect for all.

[195] Posted by centexn on 2-19-2011 at 10:44 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.