Replies

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

We could itemize the other ways in which the California nominating committee has reflected – I expect somewhat unconsciously, or even maybe unintentionally, but hopefully not quite as indifferently as it comes across – a view of life that is selfish.

It was neither unconscious nor unintentional; nor was it indifferent. Though it most certainly is selfish.

Paul Zahl, in conversation with leading liberal of C of E, finds that even the liberals are shaking their heads over Diocese of California's slate of candidates for next bishop. Why are we so surprised? This hasn't been about dialogue for a good while. The ECUSA is bracing for disaster and hoping that their gay-lesbian bet will pay off.

Is this election going to be voted on within the 120 days prior to Convention window? Or will they wait until after?

What was the resolution that was passed a while back, anyway? That no elections were to be held? Or that no consents were to be given to any elections? Or that no ordinations would be held?

I don't know what is more disappointing, the Diocese of California's episcopal nominating committee's arrogance, its moral relativity, its straying from the path of Christian values or its determination to tear TO PIECES the Church of England.

What are these people THINKING? They DO know better but their insistence on their WRONG, SINFUL thinking belies egos that just don't care beyond their own egocentric self-aborption.

It reminds me of those folks who think that it's OKAY to wreak vengeance on Muslims after the Muslims wreak havoc (murder) on Christians. How does one heinous crime justify another? The logic that justifies it is MORAL RELATIVISM.

I suppose the committee is CONVINCED that, in the end, it is right in nominating open-homosexuals as bishops.
How did they EVER get to that point? We all know that practicing homosexuals as bishops is/was/ always will be wrong (just as one group's murders don't justify the opposing group's murders). Was there ever any time in the Church's history where this wasn't true?

How DID they ever get to that point? THAT is what I just can't understand.

I'll take a minority view here and say that it is very good what California has done. They have helped clarify the choices that must be made over the next few months by parishoners, parishes, priests and bishops. If California pushes foward with this, and I personally hope that they do, there will be no hiding behind fancy words and double talk.