Posted on 11/11/2005 4:04:27 PM PST by sionnsar
"Actually, he's not a bishop. I believe the accurate term is "heresiarch."
Isn't that a great word! :)
" Haven't the African bishops already done that, in fact if not in name?"
I don't think so. If they had, they would have broken communion with every bishop in communion with Robinson. As +Theodore the Studite recalled, +John Chrysostomos loudly declared not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.
No, Pope Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae defined that Anglican Orders were "utterly null and void" because the Anglican Church rejected the Catholic theology of the priesthood when it became Protestant.
He just doesn't get it, while the sacramental efficacy of the sacred mysteries may not be affected by a priest/bishop/deacon's worthiness, holding the office is.
But, I am sure the good bishop has taken his Exacto-knife to those relevant passages.
Even if homosexuality were genetic--something I am agnostic about--he is still responsible for his passions and desires that are contrary to God's stated law.
In the Byzantine rite we ask God's forgiveness for sins both voluntary (sins of volition) and involuntary (sins of irrational passion).
God knows what he's doing. Unrepentant sinful behavior as defined by God is a result of a deep antipathy to God.
Has it ever happened? They haven't removed Spong.
What about Bishop Pike? I know there was interest in removing him, but did it actually happen?
This man defines evil. To pervert the word of God to accommodate his own perversion.
Episcipalians are more of a joke than the Unitarians. Both have more to do with promoting marxism, abortion and homosexuality than anything to do with Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.