Lemmings.

I’m shaking my head and LOL!  All this fuss about women becoming bishops, and we’re supposed to overlook the pervasiveness of active male homosexuals in the CofE? Especially in the Anglo-Catholic wing?  They’re even having their unions ‘blessed’ in splendid, ‘traditional’ ‘liturgies’?  Bizarre doin’s.

#2

WO and SS are but two sides of the same coin.

For traditionalists it undermines the concept of Apostolic Succession. With a priest, one may change parishes. With a bishop, one generally cannot change dioceses and therefore the question becomes one of sacramental validity. And then there is the matter of eventual reunion with Rome, which it seriously compromises. Say what you will, it is yet another division in a fractious religious body.

I have to agree with Little Cabbage - this sounds like a Monty Python skit.

“We have no problem with a man marrying a man so long as a man officiates at the wedding.”

And then there is the matter of eventual reunion with Rome, which it seriously compromises.

No, actually. It definitively ends it. The CoE has chosen Protestantism over Catholicism. The age of ecumenism is at an end.

Conor:  Wrong!  One is purely about CHOSEN BEHAVIOR (SS), the other (WO) is based upon interpretations of Scripture. 

I believe you are confusing theology and political tactics.  In TEC, the most radical of the WO faction was allowed to get away with in-your-face tactics (the notorious ‘Philadelphia 11’).  Many of us who strongly supported the ordination of women were appalled at the time.  As we feared and predicted,  GC did NOTHING to discipline those involved, and of course the HofB failed in this also.  As predicted, the die was cast.  The LBGT-types, and ‘Why be baptized, it’s only the sacrament of communion’, and those seeking homosexual ‘marriage’ have all used the same tactics.

Don’t let the extremists define the terms of the debate;  the ordination of women and the drive for ‘blessing’ of homoerotic behavior by the Church are two widely divergent issues from a theological standpoint.  However, the extremists have successfully used the same ‘it’s on the ground, now deal with it’ tactic to get their way (especially as the orthodox started leaving TEC in droves.)

“Little Cabbage” - I used to think like that, but no longer.  The REAL argument is whether or not some prohibitions in the N.T. are cultural or for all times and all places.  The cultural argument is used by promoters of WO and once it is accepted it works just as well with SS.

Oh, calm down…In 1976 ECUSA made a “Conscience Clause”—Remember?  So that anyone who disagreed with WO wouldn’t be mistreated.  And it has worked splendidly, right?  There is only one allowable answer.  It will work just as well in Britain.

“one generally cannot change dioceses and therefore the question becomes one of sacramental validity. And then there is the matter of eventual reunion with Rome,”
Actually one can change diocese.  Walk across the street and seek instruction and confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church nearby.  Sacramental validity; solved.  Reunion with Rome; solved.  Moaning about the CofE; solved.  No problem.

Now the crucial question: Will ++Rowan’s successor be noted for a lack of b*alls physically as well as metaphorically?

Actually, this may speed up the reunion of Anglicans and Rome.  The technical term for those leaving the CoE and other parts of the Anglican Communion to join Rome is “Catholic Converts.”

I am personally ‘up in the air’ regarding women’s ordination above the level of deacon.  I do not pretend to have the answers regarding this issue.

Issues that so deeply affect the church should be made based upon (1) arguments involving theology and tradition, including a careful evaluation of the significance of a “male presence” at the Eucharist and should NOT be made based upon (2) popular secular causes of ‘the age,’ such as “women’s” rights.

It may be that it is still God’s will that men lead the church.  If you look way back in the Bible to Numbers, you will find that God first chose Moses to lead the Exodus and the Jewish people and elected his brother Aaron, his sons and the ‘age-eligible’ and ‘blemish-free’ eligible males of the Levites to serve Him sacrementally.  He did not select Mose’s sister Miriam nor did He select any other women to serve him sacrementally. 

When Miriam and Aaron challenged Mose’s leadership.  It was the 70 men who were the leaders of the Jewish people who were called to meet at the Tent of The Tabernacle, NOT the 70 leaders AND their wives.

It was those same 68 + 2 male leaders upon whom the Spirit of God descended, NOT their wives.  There was a Divine Purpose in all of this.

Then there is the Eucharist itself, can a woman serve “in substition” for Christ in leading the Eucharist.  I just don’t have the answer.  But, I sense something lacking, when the celebrant is not a male priest or bishop. 

And I think that “sense” is the right verb to use in this instance, since the Eucharist is a totally spiritual experience for me, and for many others, in which we who believe in and follow Christ are brought into spiritual and physical Communion with Christ. 

When a woman celebrates I sometimes have this “sense” that the Eucharist has become a memorial service and not a true Communion.

Re #4
Adam 12,
Reunion with Rome has been dead for some time.  This however, is likely to make even the most delusional ecumenist suffer from a momentary glimpse of reality.  Benedict XVI is in the process of preparing the way for the TAC to enter communion which may serve as a framework for receiving much larger numbers of defecting Anglo-Catholics.

ICXC
John

P.S.  Nice handle.  That was a great TV series.

NWLayman—#9—The so-called conscience clause more or less worked for a while, but was done away with….so now, +Ackerman and +Iker are not following the canons by refusing to ordain women to the priesthood since it is mandatory.  The same will happen in England and the same will happen with S.S. blessings, etc—they will try to pacify the orthodox with their conscience clauses or whatever they choose to call them….for now….and then take them away!

Those who have at long last, had enough now logically have two choices.  Orthodoxy or Rome.  I gather Benedict is preparing to spell out some sort of plan for Anglo-Catholics wishing to swim the Tiber.  And as I mentioned in another post on a different thread, we Orthodox have put out the welcome mat and are leaving the light on for you as well.

ICXC
John

I doubt we will resolve the WO vs no WO argument. But what is clear is that the CoE is circling the drain and about to head down the loo.

Yes # 15.  This time around the motherland has pimped to the colony, and the Church of England will die off the STD that has killed its cross-pond offspring.

Say goodbye to the Church of England…....it just died.

I keep hearing so many say that there are only three choices, ie., live with the CofE, jump to Rome or jump to E. Orthodoxy. There are too many doctrinal issues with Rome and the big O.  I say that there is a fourth choice for which we just laid the groundwork with Gafcon, ie., create the ‘Jerusalem Communion’ based on “The Way, The Truth and the Life”.  The foundation has been laid and would need little adjusting.  I have seen little hope for the CofE for quite some time now and the latest fiascos just sealed that position.

Re: # 20
athan-asi-us,
GAFCON is not opposed to W/O.  More than a few of its participants support and practice it.

ICXC NIKA
John

Ad Orientem: Given that the Orthodox in England will not authorize a Western Rite for converts from the C of E, I doubt that many will be interested in the Eastern Rite. Not even the Antiochians in England allow the Western Rite as they do in the USA. Sadly, a lost opportunity.  Statmann

Both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy are completely missing the boat by refusing to authorize a Western Rite…..and it’s their loss.  The alternative:  A “Church of the Jerusalem Communion, (Anglican),” and that’s where I’m heading.

While it is true that the GAFCon-ners were/are predominantly evangelicals, they (we) value our Anglo-catholic brothers and sisters.

It is time for GAFCon episcopal oversight for churches in England. (Bp Wright was very wrong about the CoE being different from the TEC.)

Perhaps GAFCON can approve alternate episcopal oversight for those who disapprove of WO for the AngloCatholics.  But, oh yes, then there is the problem of lay presidency and the meaning of the Eucharist and divorce with remarriage.  Let’s just hope they don’t try to leave GAFCON with the property.  Good Grief!

Southern Cone does not ordain women and has shown that it is willing to lend a hand. The CoE is going bankrupt so fast that they would appreciate some the old buildings being taken off their hands. Perhaps, the CoE will show the TEC how to act in a Christian manner.

GAFCON is by no means a perfect solution for AngloCatholics, but for anyone desiring to maintain the idea of a reformed catholicism perfect is not an option anymore. Nor can GAFCON ever be seen as a “solution”. It is at best a step on a long and winding journey. I am pinning my hopes on the mysterious providence of God to bring order out of chaos, greater catholicity out of Protestantism. While I know that most of the GAFCON leadrs are soft on WO at least they all love the Lord and support an authority above them, which is not what can be said for TEC and the CofE, so I am cautiously optimistic.

there are only three choices:

1. Rome or Canstantinople
2. Geneva or the Baptist equivalant
3. The muddled mess that is GAFCON. It won’t be pretty or comfortable, impaired communion is going to be a constant factor, but it will at least be a reduced fellowship of brethren whose faith in the risen Lord is recognized and whose Gospel isn’t an embarrassment. For many of us that will be a step forward. I am willing to give it time to prove whether it is a dead end or the beginning of a promising journey.

Re #22
Statmann,
I recently made a very similar observation with respects to the lack of a viable Western Rite.  For the many who would have difficulty accepting the Byzantine Rite this certainly narrows the choice to Rome for those of a catholic mind set (as opposed to Protestant).  And you are correct.  It is very sad.

ICXC NIKA
John

#8 Harry Edmon,  I stand by my post.  Interesting that not one single person made a comment on it.  Yours simply chose to ignore the main thrust of the argument.  Alas.

William P Sulik:  Thanks!  It does have very Pythonian elements! 

Up until today I only speculated or conjectured that it was only a matter of time before some future Archbishop of Canterbury would be a woman.  It is now a matter of fact.

little cabbage, your argument is ignored because its central premises are flawed,

and boring.

I understand the opposition that some have to WO and female Bishops.  What I don’t understand is why those who are threatening to walk now didn’t do so when the first female was ordained a priest?  For purposes of full disclosure, I am equivocal on the issue; I am thankful to God for the witness of the female clergy I had at Advent, but now that I am visiting the LCMS I am also OK being in a denomination that does not ordain women.

Re #33
PWH,
Thats a pretty good question.  I suspect there are a number of reasons including the seemingly limitless capacity that human beings have for self delusion.  When confronted with unbelievably bad things we all want to think its an aberration and temporary.  “Don’t worry.  It will get better.”  And of course in the case of ECUSA/TEC there were those wonderful assurances of respect for conscientious objection given which are now, predictably, not worth the paper on which they were written.

But in the end your question, while an interesting one, is not terribly relevant to the point at hand.  They may be waking up late.  But better late than never.

ICXC
John

Little Cabbage, I am an Anglo Catholic, yet I am comfortable with GAFCON.

Ad Orientem #34, thanks; your answer makes perfect sense.

What I am waiting to see is whether they will keep their word.  The signing bishops threatened to leave if they did not get what they want.  Well, they didn’t get what they want.  What do you want to bet that no more than 10% of the signers leave?

Re # 37
Brian,
Sorry.  No bet here.

ICXC NIKA
John

What I don’t understand is why those who are threatening to walk now didn’t do so when the first female was ordained a priest?

Bishops are overseers of the whole Church.  It is why the GS tolerated partnered homosexual priests, but drew the line at Bishops.

The “lack” of a Western Rite didn’t stop KJS’ mother from becoming Orthodox around 30 years ago, anymore than a 100 mile commute every Sunday did.  At the time she was in our parish, there were also 3 former Episcopal clergy, none of whom “missed” it either!  You actually have to *want* Orthodoxy, not just *hate being an Episcopalian* to be Orthodox.  Let’s face it, every Anglican cleric now has been de-nurtured in the Episcopal Church in the post-Pike era.  They wouldn’t know sound teaching for the most part if it bit them.  The Orthodox Church actually catechizes converts, and they usually need it.  Not that it isn’t a great and wonderful experience.
Any Anglican who believes at all should by now be fairly certain they are not welcome.  They have been informed gently that gay couples are the exact equivalent to every normal marriage in 2000 years.  If they don’t believe that, they’re bigots.  Their eucharists are polluted by sub-Trinitarian worship.  Baptism in the name of alien Trinities, the Creed dropped from the eucharist.  There is no sacrament left there.
It’s not a matter of trying to relate what they have to Orthodoxy, because they are empty handed.  That’s where the Church can make sense if you’re really looking.

Their eucharists are polluted by sub-Trinitarian worship.  Baptism in the name of alien Trinities, the Creed dropped from the eucharist.  There is no sacrament left there.

With all due respect, this horrified me. In saying it, you’re telling us that we laity who remain Anglican aren’t receiving any spiritual benefits from the church and that faithful priests (Canon Harmon comes immediately to mind) who labor hard to serve and minister to us are wasting their time. I don’t believe either is true.

Look, I’m glad you found your spiritual home but to so thoroughly trash everyone and everything connected with our church just isn’t right. I have never attended a Eucharist that was “polluted by ‘sub-Trinitarian worship.’” Nor was the Creed ever dropped from any Eucharist at the parishes to which I belonged. As for Baptism in the name of “alien Trinities,” I can only respond with “HUH?”

I hope I’m not sounding insulting but I am, again, horrified. My faith and spiritual life does not depend on men; it rests with God Who provides. To assert that God doesn’t provide in some churches because of their disobedience seems to make God subservient to the actions of men.

I understand that Cardinal Kasper is scheduled to address the Lambeth Conferencd.  Wonder what he will say.

Re 41
Teatime, (I love the name)
I think you should realize that what nwlayman was trying to say among other things is that Orthodoxy does not see itself as a church.  We see ourselves as The Church.  His words may admittedly have been a trifle sharp.  But there is an important point that is being made without intention of insult.  Truth is Truth.  It is not a partial thing but rather a whole.  And TEC has so radically departed from what has always and everywhere been understood as Truth that it calls into question its place in even the broader Christian world (by which I mean outside of Orthodoxy).

It has been the consistent teaching of the Fathers that there are no Mysteries (our word for sacraments) outside of The Church.  The grace of the Holy Mysteries operates only within The Church (the Mystical Body of Christ) through and by the power and cooperation of the Holy Spirit.  This is not to say that non-Orthodox sacraments have no merit or benefit.  It is only to say that they are empty of the grace of true Orthodox sacraments.

Orthodoxy is rather agnostic when it comes to what goes on outside The Church.  Very few Orthodox have opined that nothing beneficial can come from the sacraments of the non-Orthodox.  We do not place restrictions on the mercy of God.  For this reason many Orthodox jurisdictions permit in economia the reception of converts without an Orthodox baptism if it can be positively established that they received a Trinitarian baptism with water and a sacramental intent that at least approximates what is intended in an Orthodox baptism.

Of all the things which non-Orthodox Christians here from us, I think a majority find the idea that we do not recognize their sacraments as being the most distressing or offensive.  However this is and has always been the consistent teaching of the Fathers in the age of the undivided Church.  It is not Donatism, but rather an acknowledgment that heresy, especially when it is extreme and or pervasive, impedes the grace of the Holy Spirit by which the Holy Mysteries are confected. 

The question of the relationship of those outside The Church to it is often a gray area.  The remarkable Fr. George Florovsky (one of the preeminent Orthodox theologians of the last century) wrote an essay on the subject called The Limits of The Church.  I strongly recommend it.

Yours in ICXC
John

Teatime,
One other point.  However orthodox (small ‘o’) your parish might be, I can assure you that all of the abuses which nwlayman listed HAVE actually occurred in TEC.  These are not isolated incidents. I have seen at least a couple of them with my own eyes and have heard eyewitness accounts from unimpeachable sources of the others.  Perhaps this might be a good time to print an relevant quote from the Fathers…

“Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy.” St. Theodore the Studite.

ICXC NIKA
John

John,
I’m a former RC so I’m familiar with the teachings of which you speak. (Of course, the RCC considers itself THE Church, as well.) Indeed, you mentioned one of the beliefs I found the most troubling—that human faults can “impede” God’s transformation of the bread and wine. I find that difficult on two levels: first, that human failings can impede the movement of the Holy Spirit; and, secondly, that God would deprive His faithful of the benefits of the sacrament because of the failings of the priest. I can’t believe that.

I don’t want to take this way off-topic, though. I recognize that my unbelief doesn’t make that church’s teachings wrong. (LOL, aren’t I generous?!) It could quite possibly be a deficiency in my understanding. But, there it is and here I am. Although I left the RCC for several reasons, one thing that I have realized quite clearly is that I am a Protestant. I cannot believe some of what the RCC (and, to some extent, the Orthodox Church) teaches and so I had to leave. It was the only honorable thing to do and it was the healthy choice for me.

Yes, I’m sure there are abuses in TEC parishes just as I saw horrific abuses in RCC parishes. But there are faithful people and priests, as well. God said he would not destroy a city if just one good person could be found so who are we to excoriate others who serve and worship with all of their love in an imperfect church?

Thanks for the compliment about my name. I DO love my tea—all sorts, cold and hot.

Tea

Teatime, I wish it weren’t true.  However, look in the 1979 BCP.  The eucharist there begins “Blessed be God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.
Now, it is usually (it is broadcast every Sunday morning in Seattle!) with the words “Blessed is the One Holy and Living God”.  The
response is not “And blessed is His Kingdom, now and forever”, but “Glory to God forever and ever”. 
 
  The area called the “Seeker’s Center” on the ECUSA website has been deleted(!),  it was a 100% Modalist discussion of the Trinity.  I can see why it is gone, surprised they did!
 
      For churches that have dropped the Creed (need I add, no action against them for doing so?) see San Francisco, St. Gregory’s (a particularly blasphemous place considering it’s attempts to masquerade as Eastern) :
http://www.saintgregorys.org/Resources_pdfs/Worship_at_St._Gregorys.pdf
“...It (the Creed) has remained there like a massive monument to doctrinal quarrels ever since. Its use was long resisted in the west, especially in England (a country renowned for good liturgy in the middle ages) and only squeaked into Anglican Sunday worship in the 15th century, just in time for Cranmer to preserve it. Donald Schell
reckons that it gained popularity among Episcopalians—especially Californians—because under former Prayer Books the
“Nicene” Creed was the only place laypeople could affirm something aloud, rather than accusing themselves. By contrast,
St Gregory’s liturgy keeps the people busy with affirmations, so that no one complains that the “Nicene” Creed is missing,
and only rarely does a newcomer ask why. A growing number of congregations omit it as we do.
Modern parish experience using the “Nicene” Creed suggests that its sectarian sense is intrinsic, and for most people quite
conscious. I advise ordinands that if they must use the “Nicene” Creed in their parishes, they might march about waving
American and Episcopal Church flags, while their church wardens tear up photographs of the Mormon Tabernacle: these
gestures would express the custom’s fundamental spirit, and employ beloved Episcopalian paraphernalia lately fallen into
disuse.
    The American and New Zealand Prayer Books ingeniously incorporate the “Apostle’s” Creed into the Baptismal
service, where indeed it may have originated, and where it allows the whole congregation to join the candidates in
affirming their faith. This usage is unitive, whereas the customary “Nicene” Creed usage always implies division from
other Christians.”

Wow.  Just, wow.

Also Chrurch of the Redeemer, Morristown, NJ:
“Rather than the Nicene Creed, the inclusive language service often includes a musical setting of the very first Christian creed, “Jesus is Lord,” as a meaningful way of expressing our belief.”
From :
http://www.redeemermorristown.org/wordesc.html

Needless to say, both congregations encourage anything with a body temperature to receive communion, as does St. Mark’s cathedral in Seattle. 

    I have seen reports of subchristian trinities used to baptize for years.  Simply too numerous to recount.  The only way to miss them is to look the other way. 
    Does anyone need to point out that marriage in ECUSA means precisely nothing?  What man in a normal marriage in ECUSA can possibly have anything but contempt for his wife if he stays there?  His wife is regularly, publicly and dogmatically declared to be the exact equivalent of Gene Robinson and his beau.  Have you no shame? Is this how you honor your wife?  Why do you tolerate those who defile your marriage by calling their sin it’s equal?  How on earth can people imagine raising children in this environment? 

    You sound as though *I* have insulted you.  I haven’t called normal marriage oppressive, the worship of God in Three Persons and baptism in the Trinity to be sexist, the Resurrection a myth (too many bishops to name).  What sacrament hasn’t been polluted for the purposes of non-believers?  Look closer to home for people who insult you.  I’m FOR you.

$14: See Dr. Tighe’s and Katharine’s responses to me on the earlier blog. TAC is headed Romeward and will be arm in arm if Rome allows it.
They may not, but Dr. Tighe makes it pretty clear that the deal is largely done as far as this branch of Anglicanism is concerned. LM

Little Cabbage, since no one has directly taken up your challenge, let me try.  I acknowledge that there are some evangelical ordained women who feel sincerely called to the priesthood and do their best to serve the Lord.  My opposition is not intended to denigrate their efforts.  However, at its base, this is an argument about anthropology and human nature as we are created.  It involves a category error.  We are created male and female, and we are directed to make permanent family connections, one man and one woman, in which relationship children are (God willing) created.  There are numerous Scriptural references to the Church as a family with a Father, God, to whom we have a relationship through Christ as the head of the Church.

There is nothing in scripture to tell me that I cannot be an accountant, a farmer, a weaver, a truck driver, or any other secular occupation.  Scripture does, however, put us as men in women in relationship to each other and to God.  Men also can be anything in the secular sense, but it is only they who can be husbands and fathers.  Women have the capability to be wives and mothers even if they never actually become such, and men cannot do these things.  The church is a family just as a marriage is, and men have a role to play as do women, each vitally important.  The problem is theological in the sense that to make women what they cannot be denies our created order.

Katherine - they do not see bacuase the scales of misguided certainty cloud their vision. I have sent out theology, expalined the bibilical facts till i am blue in the face. Ultimately the Godly say amen and the liberals hate a little more.

They are creating a church in their own image….and those who sincerely love Jesus have no place in their plans.

Stand aside faithfulo christian we are making room for everyone!

What traditionalists in the CofE need to be doing every day now until February is talking, organizing, working, towards seeing that the 2/3 majority required for final passage is NOT met.  Then they’re back to square one, with some bargaining power to get a stronger accommodation through.

chris hathaway, your refusal to engage is refreshingly honest of you.  Unfortunately, your snarkiness was also on full display.  Enough already.

katherine, thank you for your courtesy.  I offer the following in the same polite vein.

I understand your argument, which is one often advanced.  However, I disagree that the problem is one of ‘categories’.  Rather, it is one of understanding what a ‘presbyter’ or ‘priest’ is in the Christian Church. 

I have simply never understood those who insist on the ‘correct’ gender in the person celebrating the Mass.  Seriously.  I have heard the different arguments advanced for many years, and still find this viewpoint troubling.  A focus on the importance of the gender of the priest is a bizarre distortion.  I believe its roots go back to a healthy, ‘high’ view of what goes on in the Communion.  But somewhere along the way, (over the centuries) the awe, mystery and authority of the Eucharist has been transferred to the lowly vessel who is leading the celebration.

Too often, that has lead Christians to an exceedingly ‘high’ view of the persona of the celebrant.  Then, when that priest is revealed to have very dirty feet of clay (e.g., the RC clergy pedophilia scandals), the faithful are shattered.  This hyper view of the ‘priesthood’ is not found in the Scriptures.  Its rise was entwined with the power politics of Western Europe some centuries ago. 

I find this especially true for the theologically unsophisticated, the ‘average’ person in the pew.  (And sigh that is not a ‘put-down’; simply an observation based upon years of experience in parishes.)  How many folks do you know who ‘simply stopped believing’ because ‘Father QRST stole money’ or ‘Bishop XYZ cheated on his wife’?  Unfortunately, I’ve known quite a few.

On your post #50, as one who supports the ordination of women, I certainly wish that a proper, workable ‘accommodation’ had been worked out in TEC.  The CofE is so very different, being a state church and all that; apparently there is a much better chance there.  And I also wish that the infamous ‘Philly 11’ and the retired bishop involved had all been strongly and publicly disciplined!

Beg pardon, littlecabbage, but I think gender is important in the celebrating of the Mass as it is in the case of the priesthood. That is, the image, the symbol, the connotations, of “Father” as the keeper and transmitter of The Law is ancient, widespread, and intuitively comprehensible. The image, symbol, connotations of “The Mother” is also distinctive; it may be coterminous with The Father but it cannot be a replacement. A female priest cannot be The Father any more than - pace Schori - Christ is The Mother. The gender issue is a gestalt of enormous complexity, but what we can say, in spite of gender feminism’s most vigorous efforts, is that men and women are fundamentally different, and this difference runs deep into a darkness ratiocination can never penetrate.  Larry

#46 Nwlayman,
Yes, I did find your words offensive. It seems to me that when there are problems in the churches not under the jurisdiction of Rome or Constantinople, the criticism tries to paint the entire church, all of its clergy and members as defective, pointing out cases of abuses with relish. Ah, but when the sex abuse scandal hit the RCC, we were reminded often to be charitable and NOT to paint the church and her clergy with that same brush. Rightly so.

I could do EXACTLY as you did, pointing out RC churches and dioceses where horrendous abuses happened. You mentioned San Francisco, so I will detail one: An RC church and priest that had the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (Google them if you’re not familiar) conduct weekly bingo games at the church where the prizes were sex toys. I say this only to illustrate that every church has its skeletons and abuses. I can dig up all sorts of sordid tales but won’t.

I can’t imagine going to an RC blog to call that church the “Whore of Babylon” or use similar inflammatory rhetoric. That would be insulting. It’s no less insulting to insinuate here that all of us belong to some sort of pseudo-Christian cult of modernist belief based on what some dioceses permit on the left coast. Again, it’s especially disrespectful to the blog owner here who ministers faithfully to his flock and beyond.

Teatime, I am sorry for offending you. 
I’m Orthodox, and we are certainly *not* immune from idiocy among the bishops.  I have yet however to find one example in 25 years of a clergyman or bishop who explicitly denies the creed, the words of the Bible, who thinks marriage is anything other than what we all know it to be.  Or who condones shacking up prior to it. In fact, I haven’t found any laity who do either.  They might be around but they hide it well.  The Church has had terrible examples of laity, me included, and clergy.  It doesn’t change the facts of the faith we believe, it just increases my guilt because I know or should know better when I err.  In Anglicanism there is no fact of the faith that isn’t up for grabs.  There are virtually no bishops who defend *any* part of the faith that was taken for granted when I was young.  The ground is always shifting, and that’s no place to stand. 
    Rather frequently I see my Sunday school teachers of my Episcopalian childhood in my work.  I am nothing but thankful for the fact they taught me the Gospels, and seem to have forgotten to tell me it was all a lie!  The situation that Anglicans are in makes me ache for the faithful left there. 
    The “Sisters” are unfortunately a familiar sight in Seattle, but mostly around St. Mark’s, the Episcopal cathedral here.  The “Pride” parade is well attended by a large contingent from there each year. 
Seattle is also where Anne Redding is resident, the “Muslim Christian” priestess.  It’s an odd place.
    In short, the Orthodox have been there for 2000 years warts and all, and the faith is the same.  We won’t be changing the recipe for marriage, trying to downplay any of the Gospel, won’t invent designer “trinities”.  We don’t change the theology every time a liturgy book is reprinted.  One is a communicant (unworthily) only when a properly received full member of the Faith.  It isn’t just walk in off the street.  Being a member of the Church is being in a marriage, and we don’t adulterate it.  I just haven’t found any clergy who water any of it down.  I have every confidence that if they did, their bishop would be on it, and fast.  It has happened.  That’s why 7 Ecumenical Councils were held!  They may do a very inadequate job of preaching or teaching, but they just don’t deny the Faith.  In all the Northwest I can honestly say I would send my children to any Orthodox priest I can think of.  Not for dynamism or show, but for a straight answer.  They will not be lied to.  Do you know an Episcopalian who can say that?