“Who will be presiding at the Eucharist?”

As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today
I wish that man would go away!

We are not publicising names of participants in the Eucharist service – we want folk to join with us in worship and prayer, not focus on personalities.

I don’t really understand why you want to know who is presiding - as an evangelical Christian I have never put great store by the identity of the President at communion. It’s enough that we recognise each other in the body of Christ broken for us.

I do hope you will be among the worshippers on Sunday as we pray for our Bishops.

Possible response to Peter’s “Real Question”

i)  MYO*B, or
ii)  NOY*B, or
iii) I don’t know.  Ask someone else, or
iv)  I don’t care, or
v)  Elton John.  ARE YOU SATISFIED NOW?  , or
vi)  I’m sorry, but I am not at liberty to disclose the information you requested. 

Suggested form of Peter’s next email:

Dear Brenda,
You are a woman more righteous than I.  Against you and you alone have I sinned.  Surely I will burn for eternity for my sin against the Eleventh Commandment. 

That being the case, I’d rather not enter the Wide Gate, y’know, empty-handed.  So like, who will be presiding at that Eucharist?

Peter

(I’d pay money to see the look on her face.  )

Well, we knew Integrity was going to make a picnic of Lambeth, didn’t we? *sigh*  They’re like children - “why did the kids put beans in their ears…”

Wow! Talk about evasive! I hope that Peter gives us a follow-up article to the Picnic/Communion so that we can know who actually presided. I’m beginning to hear faint drums in the distance they seem to be saying I-n-d-a-b-a.

Peter ... Next time ask me.

LOL at Susan’s comment.

Susan lays the smack down on “Brenda.”  Too funny.

Peter, your questions were great, and Brenda was quite evasive.  But apparently the only person authorized to comment is Susan.

BTW, Susan, who is celebrating the Eucharist?

Ha!  The “smackdown” is right!
However, since every time Miz Russell posts here, her computer freezes up and she has to go have a stiff drink, she rarely engages in any Q&A;, or really, any dialogue of substance.  I’m sure you are aware of her “drive-by” habits here on SF—
She’s like a mischievous little high schooler with a learner’s permit, and just goes round the neighborhood with a bat, bashing in people’s mailboxes….

Just another steaming load of crap from the PB (Pagan Bishop).

It is arrogant to assume Peter’s question could be interpreted only one way.

Nasty, do we really give a fig leaf who is celebrating the Eucharist without Integrity*?

What is far more important about the Changing Attitude/Integrity Eucharist, theologically speaking, is what kind of shoes will the Lavender Gardens Gang wearing?  Will we be witnessing another display of shoes like the ones we did at Bishop Robinson’s wedding?  If we do, then we might be forced to conclude these folks have not read the parable of the wedding feast where the guy was thrown out for not wearing the proper garments.
*For an Episcopalian/Anglican Eucharist to have real capital “I” integrity, for a starter, must shared only with the baptized.  This one is billed as All Are Welcomed.

Gee, hope it doesn’t rain on the picnic.  Are they planning games like sack races, egg toss, and three-legged races?

With the Anglican Communion’s luck, it will probably be Rowan Williams.

my money is on the simple country bishop - aka narcissist extraordinaire - someone will undoubtedly twist his arm to be the celebrant at the company picnic.  They will, of course, have to FORCE him to do it.

No doubt you are correct, my dear #14.  Merely another stop for (wait for it)...

The VGR Sideshow.  Filling the void on slow British newsdays.

No, he won’t do it, though he is pained at not being able to.  He might concelebrate quietly, in the front row, so the there’s a picture to go with the interview about his exclusion.  First, you have to create the suffering that you can prove that you’ve overcome, you see.

Oh, I am willing to bet that he will. If he does, this will be only the continuation of TEC flexing their muscles over the AC. Truth be told, I can’t help but believe that Rowan Williams is in on it.

I wonder if it would be worth asking someone who will be there? Greg, my two cents are take Susan Russell up on her offer, and ask her.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Maybe the celebrant will be Susan Russell!  She’s “L” from “LBGT” and as a bonus, a woman, so she could stir both pots which are currently bubbling in England.

The story from Ould says:
“As I’m sure you’re all aware, over two months ago Rowan Williams wrote to Gene Robinson, refusing to grant him the right to preach or preside at the Eucharist whilst he was over here in Blighty during the Lambeth Conference. Having already completely ignored the prohibition on preaching last night at St Mary’s Putney, now it looks as though he might be getting ready to go one better.”

I am very surprised that Peter Ould had not picked up this report which followed on the report he quotes:

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/no-pulpit-ban-for-bishop-robinson-tlc-50208/

This has been confirmed (and reported) in several other comments from Lambeth Palace since.

Surely Peter Ould was not trying to sow disinformation, or trying to blacken the character of Bishop Robinson by falsely reporting something that has long since been known to be untrue?

Surely no Christian soul would do that to a fellow Christian - no matter how deeply they might disagree?

A simple phone call to Lambeth Palace was all it took for me to confirm that the ABC has not banned Bishop Robinson from preaching.

I’m glad that you’ve pointed out that link Martin. It’s important to note two things:

i) The spokesman said that canon law did not permit a preacher to be legally prohibited from speaking in a church service. The spokesman deliberately didn’t address the issue as to whether Rowan Williams had asked Gene Robinson not to preach.
ii) The Archbishop *has* forbidden Gene Robinson to preside at the Eucharist. That’s not even vaguely in dispute.

P+

Ms. Schori would make a stirring celebrant.  She fits right in, regardless of orientation.

“Stirring” is right.

I have in mind the picture of someone with a long beaked nose, and a pointy black hat, .....stirring, stirring, stirring…..

Oh please—the PB with Oven Mitt. At the picnic, it could double as a BBQ mit. That great, over-tall item was such a good laugh. Surely Chuck Robertson carried it over for her.

How DOES one “blacken the character of ‘bishop Robinson’”???????? I think he’s done quite a fine job himself. I can personally attest to his prevarication, manipulation, and self-centered narcissism.

#10 Texex - I am very good at seeing ambiguity and possible puns that many don’t spot, but can’t think of another way to interpret DO’s question.  Are you saying it depends upon what “is” means or are you serious?

On another note - Although I understand the anger and pain, I am a bit sad at the tone of some of the comments here. Philippians 4:8-9

Peter, there are more burning questions here than who is celebrating.  Will Louie Crew wear his gold satin pumps?  Will leather bondage attire be OK?  Will there be another heckler-for-hire from the Hell’s Angels?  And will the Queen be invited?  (I mean the British monarch.)

Cathy_Lou, my post [#10] was a reference to KJS’s quote from Forbes:

“Some people think that you can read the Bible without understanding the original context and simply take literally what you read. We will interpret - and it’s an important part of faithful living,” Jefferts Schori said. “To assume there is only one way of reading is hubris.”

Of course there is only one way to read Peter’s question: “Who is presiding at the Eucharist?” While many parts of the Bible operate at multiple levels and tech several (non-contradictory) things at once, explicit prohibitions are easy to understand. Only (intentional?) obtuseness like what we’ve seen in these emails can get someone to the point of claiming simple statements aren’t what they seem. In effect, KSJ’s reading of the Bible is just as baffling and nonsensical as Brenda’s response to Peter. Both episodes bring into question their intellectual honesty, or intellectual horsepower.

I’m all for charity but it is clear enough what the game is.  No doubt we can fuss for eternity about how each hand is played but who cares?  I wouldn’t bother engaging the internal logic of Mormons insisting that good Mormon men will have a harem of good Mormon women on his planet for the population of the next expansion of Vishu.  Why would I bother to question Schori’s beliefs?  What matters at this point isn’t whether Schori and Co. are stupid or wicked.  That would never get sorted out.  When wrestling with pigs there are two things to watch out for:  a smiling pig and coming to enjoy the mud oneself.  Restitution for anyone and everyone requires a return to the Father’s House and not a debate from within the Prodigal’s pigpen.

Peter, I’m surprised you just didn’t ask your question directly - “Is Gene Robinson presiding at the Integrity USA Eucharist”. 

By the same token, Susan R should have answered said question when she drove by.

Perhaps by her lights, she did answer. Meaning it is her.  But they seem to be having a good time not answering.  No doubt goes back to toilet training trauma and certain fixations.  And yes, VG probably will con-celebrate with some limpid melodrama that *might* be construed either way.  If you believe he concelebrated, he did.  Heck, it seems liberal TEC laity all think they are concelebrating.  What else can one expect from a group that espouses the “priesthood of all believers” without Christ?  They are all the only begotten sons and daughters of god ... and we know from Freud that “the child is the father of the man” so they can say with all seriousness, “I am the Father.”  In fact, without them, there would be no god.  Thank goodness for the fairy dust anointing that gives life to god.

A phone call to Lambeth will assure you that this is very firmly “in dispute” Peter.

But you do not need that - you say Bishop Robinson has flaunted a “prohibition” on his preaching.

Look at what is already in the public domain.

There has been NO such prohibition.

Just so we’re clear Martin, you’re saying that Lambeth Palace will quite happily state on the record that Rowan Williams did not even ask Gene Robinson politely, off the record as it were, not to preach?
Just so we’re clear, are you disputing that Gene Robinson has been refused a licence to officiate (under Canon C17.6)?

<i>When wrestling with pigs there are two things to watch out for:  a smiling pig and coming to enjoy the mud oneself.  Restitution for anyone and everyone requires a return to the Father’s House and not a debate from within the Prodigal’s pigpen.

Words to live by, monologistos.

Peter, firstly I find this very disturbing.

I made the intervention above believing that you actually HAD missed the clarification from Lambeth reported like this by the Reverend George Conger:

Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire has not been banned from pulpits in the Church of England according to a spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who denied press speculation that the Archbishop Rowan Williams was attempting to silence Bishop Robinson.

It now seems that you DID know of this piece.

You ask ME for proof that there has never been a private arrangement between Rowan and Gene – when I was expecting proof from you to support you allegation that Bishop Robinson had preached the Gospel in a Church as an act of defiance against a prohibition from the Archbishop of Canterbury and that he was about to “go one better” and preside at a Eucharist.

Peter, you have clearly not only made a false allegation – but have built on that lie.

As a matter of record I know of no “private” arrangement between Gene and Rowan – they would be foolish to have one.

Do you know Peter, even if Gene was to celebrate this Eucharist in Canterbury it makes your false allegation no less false.

Martin,
When you made your first comment, I was unaware of the
Conger piece. I’m quite puzzled how you came to the opposite conclusion. Please don’t call me a liar in a public forum.

Then withdraw.

Withdraw what?

Making a false allegation about a person is a sin.

You might consider withdrawing this, making a personal written apology, and an apology on your blog - in fact just where the present untrue story is.

If you want to blog as you do - Do not spread falsehoods - check your facts!

You’re going to have to spell out what the false allegation is. I presume you mean the link on my blog to the piece about Robinson being prohibited from preaching? Haven’t we already established that Conger has a piece showing that to be incorrect?

Martin needs to loose his nappy.  Seems to be wadded and uncomfortable.  But that still doen’t resolve who’s celebrating at the picnic.  why not even the official release noted in the Telegraph says; it merely cites the preacher.  Donuts to dollars it’s our happy little gay country bishop.  Whose happiness is probably nearly orgasmic at being the center of the Anglican Lame-beth uni-verse and could only be topped off by wearing those dashing wedding tennies at the celebration.

Martin:  The Conger article you reference says this:

While traveling in Britain to promote his book, Bishop Robinson told the BBC “in the past [Archbishop Williams] has… declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.”

Then it says

Bishop Robinson broached the topic again in a letter to Archbishop Williams, seeking permission to officiate in the province this summer and seeking his endorsement to preach. Archbishop Williams again declined to license Bishop Robinson to officiate, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations [Bishop Robinson] has received” to preach, said the Rev. Jonathan Jennings, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s press secretary.

So according to this story, Robinson has not received any “permission” to preach.  Now while it can be argued that Robinson doesn’t need the ABC’s permission to preach, this article indicates that nevertheless Robinson had said that he would NOT preach without that permission, and this article is also clear that such permission has not been obtained.

While traveling in Britain to promote his book, Bishop Robinson told the BBC “in the past [Archbishop Williams] has… declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission.” Episcopal News Service reported April 30 that Archbishop Williams would not permit Bishop Robinson “to preach or preside at a Eucharist while he is in England, according to reports.”

(snip) But another canon gives the authority to preach to a parish incumbent, with the permission of the diocesan bishop.”

So apparently the real issue is, did Gene lie when he said he wouldn’t preach without the ABC’s permission?

Because inquiring minds obviously want to know, you can eliminate one name from your list of candidates:  I will be at Lambeth as the President of The Episcopal Women’s Caucus, but I will not be presiding at the Changing Attitudes/Integrity Eucharist.

Elizabeth Kaeton

Actually, we were only wondering if it was VGR.  Seeing as he publicly swore he’d never officiate without the ABC’s express permission (which he hasn’t got) that would speak volumes about his integrity.  (The real kind, without the capital I.)

Beyond that, Paris Hilton could be presiding and no one here would particularly care.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Elizabeth Kaeton post here before.  This place seems to attract all the celebrities.

Per:

Making a false allegation about a person is a sin.

You might consider withdrawing this, making a personal written apology, and an apology on your blog - in fact just where the present untrue story is.

If you want to blog as you do - Do not spread falsehoods - check your facts!

[40] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 07-15-2008 at 04:20 PM

Rev. Marin, before you go around calling other sinners, do not ignore the log in your own eye.  You tell people it’s better than A-OK to be gay, it’s God’s will.  Talk about being a sinner, my word…

Rev. Kaeton, actually we were more interested in what outfit you were wearing to the picnic, than who would be presiding over your cough,cough Eucharist. I understand for shoes you will probably opt for the Birkenstock sandal for reasons of comfort.  And comfort is an important consideration for women of mature years.  However, I’ve always found that while heels are difficult to maneuver on open grass but they are worth the added nuisance as they do show a woman’s ankle off so much more nicely.  I’m sure you can appreciate what I’m saying.  Have fun.

Oh, I finally went and read the Peter’s whole blog post.  It is nice to know that Brenda considers herself loyal, orthodox and evangelical.  I suppose by that she means that she isn’t quite ready to approve of the relationship described below, or at least not until an extended Listening Process is gone through. 
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4332635.ece

From Susan Russell’s blog;
The Top Ten
Most Influential Anglicans
NOT Celebrating
At the Changing Attitude/Integrity Eucharist
10—Ed Bacon
9—Elizabeth Kaeton
8—Jack Spong
7—Barbara Harris
6—Jon Bruno
5—Jeffrey John
4—Marilyn McCord Adams
3—Giles Fraser
2—Susan Russell
1—V. Gene Robinson

At least she has a good sense of humor.

Well, it could be the ABC.  He’s been known to do this sort of thing secretly in the past.  Perhaps he’s exiting a closet of some sort?  You know, like the small box heterosexualists insist God is in?

declined to license Bishop Robinson to officiate, and had given “no endorsement for any of the invitations has received” to preach

There seem to be two issues here;
+++Rowan has not licensed +Gene to officiate. +Gene will not be officiating anywhere while he is in England.
+++Rowan has not endorsed any of +Gene’s invitations to preach. +Gene preached at St Mary’s Church, Putney with the authority of the diosesan according to Giles+, the rector, which is all that he needed.

The Changing Attitude/Integrity service is in the Dio of Canterbury, +++Rowan’s own diocese. +Gene will not be officiating or preaching in Canterbury.

Miss Kaeton,
No one even gave you a thought! Gee full of oneself aren’t ya?

By the way…a question for serious Christians not THOSEKindofChristians   Isn’t Sir Ian an atheist? If my memory serves me correct then I have to ask what in heavens name is he doing hanging out with Anlgicans at a supposed chrisitan conference?

Maybe Sir Ian finds Bishop Robinson irresistable.

Sir Ian was asked to “host” the English premier of For the Bible Tells Me So. Yes, he mentioned on the BBC that he was an unbeliever. He later stated that +Gene’s friendship has influenced him to think more seriously about Christianity.

David |däˈvēd|
I guess it would now that it (the CofE & Tec & ACofC) accepts gays as they are contrary to scripture stating that one must leave the sinful life and conform to God and His teacings and not to the worldly and fleshlydesires. And since the liberal revisionists have taken over the [C]hurch and plans to rewrite the bible in their own interpretation that is NOT Holy Spirit inspired he woud want to take a another look at that type of christianity!

David |däˈvēd| -

I’m not going, would you add me on there?

Thanks.

Top Ten Anglican Cats Not Attending Lambeth:

10.  Me
9.  Morris the Cat
8.  Garfield
7 - 1 A slew of Warrior cats my daughter can name but I cannot

#32 wrote:

A phone call to Lambeth will assure you that this is very firmly “in dispute” Peter.

Martin, that, I’m sure, depends on who picks up the phone at Lambeth Palace!

Eclipse,
Here are a few more for your list:
The Cheshire Cat
Felix
The Cat in the Hat
Sylvester
Top Cat
Tom (from Tom & Jerry)

Thanks ODC - I was having a brain freeze over cat names…

Of course, just typing on the keyboards with paws takes a great deal of energy.

Top Ten Anglican Cats Not Attending Lambeth:

I almost added “The Cat in the Hat” to your list…..
then I remembered, “Oh yeah…sadly, she IS going…” 

Funny thing about that Cat in the Hat, too…..mayhem always follows…...

For the record, I would like to mention that I will neither be celebrating nor preaching at the Integrity Eucharist. As far as I am concerned, there will be no Lambeth gathering what with the ABC acting like a Quisling.  :(

My motive is truth.

Hmmm - It seems very simple to me ....

“Having already completely ignored the prohibition on preaching last night at St Mary’s Putney, 

This remains uncorrected - It is not truth.

Leaving it there when you know it is not truth makes it a lie.

You mean the bishop did not preach at St. Mary’s Putney?

No, oscewicee, he means he gave a link to a report above pointing out that Williams did not forbid Robinson to preach, since he lacks authority to do so.  Peter and others seem to think that Williams requested that Robinson refrain.

Martin,
I have already publicly admitted that I was wrong on the prohibition here. I have left the original post intact and unedited so that everybody can see that I made a mistake.

While the ABC may not have banned Bishop Robinson from preaching he has certainly not been licensed to preach in it either which would have been the usual courtesy and perhaps the strict requirement.  Putney is part of the Archdiocese of Canterbury and its Convocation as far as I know.

Putney is in the Diocese of Southwark.

Southwark is in the Archdiocese of Canterbury.  I think Dr Williams has been pretty restrained in the circumstances.

In the Church of England there are no Archdioceses, hence there is no Archdiocese of Canterbury. There is a Diocese of Canterbury.

There is also the Province of Canterbury and the Diocese of Southwork is one of 30 dioceses in the Province.

The other province of the Church of England is the Province of York, which has 14 dioceses, including the diocese of York

Southwork?

Sorry, I speak English as Second Language. My Mac and I do not always catch my spelling errors, especially with proper nouns.

St Mary’s Putney is in the Diocese of Southwark under the bishop of Southwark. It is further in the Episcopal Area of Woolwich under the bishop of Woolwich.

Under CoE episcopal structure St Mary’s vicar is insulated with two layers of episcopal authority from the ABC.

And so now we have it - Putney is in the diocese of Southwark, Province of Canterbury.

We know that the ABC cannot forbid a preacher and now we know the ABC cannot give permission for Bishop Robinson to preach in Southwark diocese - how can a bishop (even the Metropolitan!) grant permission for something in another bishop’s diocese? (outside of the mind of FOCa - that is!!)

Bishop Robinson preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Putney with all the necessary approvals.

There is a bit about the role of the ABC here and about his authority here .

#74 Rev Reynolds - as far as I can see the ABC has both authority and jurisdiction in all dioceses in his province - would that not include the licensing of preachers?

#76 - I don’t think it does. I think a Bishop pretty much has authority over his own diocese.

David, my Mac and I don’t catch all my spelling errors, and English is my first language!  No worries! 

Back to the theme of this thread, the bottom line is that +Gene is not preaching or presiding at the Changing Attitude/Integrity Eucharist/Picnic at Kent University.

Although I am not familiar with the canons of the CoE, it appears that there is a difference in granting one permission to preach in a particular diocese, and in licensing one to function in priestly or episcopal office in the Province of Canterbury.

I believe +Gene to respect those boundaries and to be abiding by those canons. None of us are privy to any private understanding between +Gene and +++Rowan governing this season of the Lambeth Conference.

As a side note, why are some of you so incensed that you want to believe that +Gene is “breaking the rules,” but you are on the other side of this same fence when an Anglican bishop or primate of another province comes into either of the Anglican provinces of the USA or Canada and does much more than preaching or presiding at Eucharist?

As a side note, why are some of you so incensed that you want to believe that +Gene is “breaking the rules,” but you are on the other side of this same fence when an Anglican bishop or primate of another province comes into either of the Anglican provinces of the USA or Canada and does much more than preaching or presiding at Eucharist?

As is customary with revisionists, you’ve got it back to front.  The precedent for rebellion was yours, as history will show.  Or to put it in plainer terms, you started it. 

People on your side have disobeyed scripture, broken canon law, flouted Lambeth resolutions and the Windsor Report, and proclaimed these outlaw actions as courageous and progressive.  But when an orthodox congregation alienated by your lawlessness asks for oversight from an orthodox bishop (as is allowed under the Windsor Report) you scream blue murder.  What’s the matter?  Don’t like your own medicine?

St.Anon,
I have not done any of the things that you are going on about. I am a parishioner in la parroquia de la Sagrada Familia in el diócesis de México Norte de la Iglesia Anglicana de México. I have not screamed about anything. I have asked a simple, straightforward question with this regard to bishops in other jurisdictions.

I am aware of the Windsor Report. It is the document, resulting from a study by the Lambeth Commission. It contains a number of recommendations to the Anglican Communion. Since the AC is a federation of autonomous/autocephalous provinces it can never be more than recommendations. There are many Anglicans in the world in other provinces who do not agree with the WR recommendations, and our provinces have no intention of implementing them.

David |däˈvēd|, why then expect others to see boundaries any more binding than the Windsor Report? Or is geography the most important thing about Anglican belief? I’d prefer the National Geographic Society, if so, and membership would be cheaper.

I have asked a simple, straightforward question with this regard to bishops in other jurisdictions.

No you haven’t.  You have hurled an accusation coated with a layer of snark, which got hurled right back at you.

As for the Windsor report, you may choose to disregard it, but both the Canadian and US churches have repeatedly claimed to be “Windsor compliant”.  It is a lie, and must be called out as such.

Susan Russell has the official answer on her blog.

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2008/07/press-advisory-16-july-2008-lgbt.html

She’s preaching, and Colin Coward is presiding.

You have hurled an accusation coated with a layer of snark…

St. Anon., perhaps our cultural differences and the gulf between our individual use of the one common language is interfering. I am sorry that you perceive so, for my part I did no such thing.

Sorry, David, but when you fling mud at others, I think you’ll find that most of it sticks to you. I understand that you find the rights of others disconcerting, but that is a fault on your part. Christ asked us to look into our own hearts and deal with our own wrongs, you should follow his counsel and resolve your resentments. Not to do so is to continue in sin.

Mari, I now have no idea what you are on about.
- when you fling mud at others -
- you should follow his counsel and resolve your resentments -
- Not to do so is to continue in sin -

I do not see any of this in any of my posts. I conceive my posts mostly in Spanish. I translate with a number of available writing tools; dictionaries, thesauruses, US cultural and urban slang (mostly for understanding the posts of others), etc. After I write, I spell and grammar check. I most always Preview before actually Submitting.

Let me rephrase my original question. Folks here express a number of emotions regarding +Gene in England. Folks are concerned that he is “breaking the rules.” That he may preach or preside without permission from the proper diocesan or provincial authority. I have read that there have been a number of occasions when bishops and primates from outside the provinces of Canada and the USA have done more than preach or preside without having received provincial or diocesan authority to do so. Folks here did not object. How are these two situations different?