American interest online has an interesting article about the splits that continue in the Episcopal Church:
People like me will be in a tough spot. I think Bishop Glasspool’s election and consecration were ill-advised, but that is by no means the same thing as denying the possibility that in due time and with due order and deliberation, such a step could be taken without harm to Christian faith and morals.
They are talking about the second openly gay (in this case lesbian) bishop. He then compares this to an earlier time:
And those who criticize this step most bitterly need to reflect that earlier steps to desegregate Episcopal churches and ordain African Americans were once bitterly fought as well.
I don’t claim to be a biblical expert, but I can’t seem to find anything in the bible that forbids black people from being ordained. If anyone can show it to be I’d be rather surprised, however there does seem to be something specific about homosexuality even Mr Mead concedes the point.
It’s also impossible to avoid the reflection that the Episcopal church is unilaterally imposing its own vision of the church on a worldwide communion. Whatever one thinks of the matter on a personal basis, the New Testament as well as the Old specifically condemns homosexual behavior as contrary to the will of God…These are not easy questions and a person doesn’t need to be a homophobe or unthinking fundamentalist to continue to accept traditional Christian teaching on this subject.
Most generous of you. This is a great example of the sin of pride and this type of thing isn’t just a protestant issue:
Now is a time to challenge the bishops head on. The definition of Catholicism — of what it means to be Catholic — is what is at stake. Now is a time of upheaval. Dare I say war?
Oh how about that, war against the church, that sounds very faithful:
The Church needs to change. If it is to change it is going to change now. And it will change only with direct challenges to authority from within its fold, not from without.
We as Catholics must be prepared to lose everything — even risk excommunication — in order to gain back our moral authority. As my Italian-born Catholic grandfather used to say, “You can’t excommunicate me. I excommunicate you.”
That my dear friends is the sin of pride, Thomas Peters takes on some of this nonsense
Buddy, just where are you getting your facts? Is it the seminaries with record numbers of young Catholic men ready to embrace a life of celibacy for the sake of the Church? Is it the flourishing proudly-Catholic colleges like Steubenville, Christendom, and a dozen more? Is it the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of young, brave Catholics who proudly live their faith despite all the cultural forces being against it?
How’s that “inspid and weak” Cafeteria Catholicisim working out for you? After all, people with far more ability to threaten the Church have predicted its demise before, and they have all been wrong as yes, you are now mistaken.
Let’s get down to business this is the basics of Christianity:
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. Matthew 16:15-17
This sentence is the basis for all of Christianity. The divinity of Christ. Any denomination or church that doesn’t emphasize this as a blunt fact is unlikely to sustain itself. Lets continue the passage:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt 16:18-19
Well that seems pretty direct too in terms of authority doesn’t it, but hold on a second some might suggest this doesn’t apply to those pope’s who followed Peter, lets take a peek at another passage:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. John 20:22-24
Now does anyone dispute Thomas’ position among the apostles? Does anyone deny his apostolic authority? Apparently Mr. Rotondaro, his allies in the dissenting group Catholics in alliance for the common group would and perhaps Mr. Mead would too.
The reason why the church is not a democracy is that people given the chance to define sin, will always define it to excuse their own actions or desires. That’s where the Anglican communion came from in the first place. Anglicans aren’t coming over to Rome because of the arguments of our liberal friends.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
“The reason why the church is not a democracy is that people given the chance to define sin”
Yes and no. My Baptist church is governed, in the temporal sense, as a pure Athenian democracy: 1 member, 1 vote on anything to do with, say, painting the walls.
For matters of faith, it is governed by Jesus and the Word. Anyone attempting to tamper therewith is going to find themselves alone, STAT.
Hence the fact that quite a bit of this “modern” stuff doesn’t even reach the threshold of topical: what actual Christian holds themselves competent to deconstruct the Word?
Here’s what I’ve never understood: if you don’t like the Pope, then there’s a religion for you – the Protestant one. If you want practising gay leaders, then there are religions for you – Wiccan, Gaia, etc. However, if you are pro-life, anti-contraception, pro-tradition, pro-traditional family, pro-charity, and love the Pope, then there’s only one place for you: Catholicism.
Don’t these people understand that they should just get their own religion and stop trying to co-opt one that does not fit their values? I’m all for religions being open, but that openness is to people who believe in the values of that religion with all of their hearts (or are working to get there), not those who are hostile to its core values.
Smitty: you’re a Baptist, not a Catholic (NTTAWWT); my guess is that the liberals will try to co-opt your religion in about a decade or so (having torn apart every other Christian faith). The beauty of a top-down structure (which does have its own flaws) is that it is immune from the vicissitudes of modern public opinion and has an easier time perpetuating its traditions. Those steeped in the tradition are the ones who will choose the next round of leaders, who are almost invariably as orthodox as themselves. Now, a relatively insular community* like the Baptists doesn’t have the Cafeteria Catholic problem, so democracy can work in a way that it wouldn’t in the Catholic Church; otherwise, democracy is a failure.
*An odd term for an active group of proselytisers, I know, but I mean it in terms of ideological insularity.
[…] must still have scripture on his mind after our discussion yesterday and is remembering Luke […]
@roxeannedeluca,
I respect the Pope.
However, I wouldn’t consider myself Protestant, springing from a tradition that, gently, lovingly, never considered Rome as having more authority than anyone else.
Suffice it to say that there are three major interpretations of Matthew 16; the Catholic one, the literal one where Jesus was standing upon a boulder and proclaiming a moment, and the one where “this rock” refers to Saint Peter more as an example than commissions him above Disciple.
“Don’t these people understand that they should just get their own religion and stop trying to co-opt one that does not fit their values? ”
Christianity is about fitting _me_ to the Christ, not about fitting the Christ or his Word to any whacky notion of mine.
“Now, a relatively insular community* like the Baptists doesn’t have the Cafeteria Catholic problem”
Oh, it’s actually worse. The unambiguous chain of command in the Roman Church is, paradoxically, a Big Win, IMO.
My personal challenge is the notion of a Holy Tradition equated with the Holy Bible.
One great thing about the Internet in general and blogs in particular is that many Christians have figured out we can operate in the vast overlapping region of agreement and not spend so much time majoring on the minors.
As a specific example, the Roman Church has, I understand, exactly one translation per contemporary spoken language. Outside of that, you get hard-heads like me that lean towards the 1611 KJV, and many others who, crushed in spirit by the vestigal Germanic elements therein, prefer the NIV. Talk about a distraction.
Oh, dear. I did not mean that everyone who respects the Pope can only be Catholic – that was terrible wording on my part. Mea culpa.
Which is why you are a Christian. If that religion didn’t really work out for you, then you wouldn’t (you, personally, because you’re sensible) try to re-make the religion in your own image – you would go and find a religion that matches your own beliefs.
My complaint with these people (not you!) is that they don’t seem to understand that there are thousands of religions out there, of which Catholicism is but one.
Agreed. The value of “the minors” (as you so aptly put it) is that it enables people to find a religious home that is aligned with their take on the minor issues – sort of like how you can pick a college whose atmosphere is a good match for you, but you’re still going with the goal of getting an education. My rant (not directed at you, Smitty) was against people who are doing the religious equivalent of trying to get Hampden-Sydney to admit women, relocate to Seattle, and offer classes exclusively in bead-making and studio art.