Some Albany Episcopal Clergy to Join Anglican Church in North America

https://juicyecumenism.com/2021/03/...UehgYS-uwomymoF06H9Z5dVCtUz6LVDZnug4K4_dFJIOk

 

Thanks be to God

 

I think something similar will happen in the Diocese of Springfield, when Bishop Martins retires and is replaced with a progressive.

 

This is a matter which must be handled carefully. I would not think it appropriate to just bring them in and act like the last decade isn't part of their history. Any clergyman who stayed in TEC to this point probably needs some remedial education. The bishop should carefully monitor these people for 6 months to a year and call some symposiums or clerical retreats to teach the doctrine and liturgy of the diocese.

Don't be like some of the less particular Continuing churches and take anyone who's got a Bible and a prayer book and an ordination certificate from some wandering bishop and have them plugged into a parish or mission doing a 1662 Communion service 2 weeks later.

 

I would say that theyshould serve under some already orthodox Anglican priests for at least a year and do remedial education. Demote the women priests to some sort of deacon but still pay them a priest salary and stop all WO everywhere.

 

No, it has to be a deaconess, as we have them in the REC. A lay woman, consecrated to special ministry, that can serve on some parallel tasks with an ordained male deacon without being in holy orders herself. That's the ancient pathway to women in ministry.

But Women deacons will be the same as women bishops 20 years later, which becomes gay bishops and gay marriage 20 years after that.

The modernism needs to be nipped in the bud, or it will always metastasize.

 

I agree. When I said deacon that is was what I was thinking of.

 

I'm confident that Bp. Julian Dobbs will handle things appropriately. He doesn't seem like one who would welcome into the diocese priests who couldn't be trusted to follow proper doctrines and protocols. My parish is in ADLW and our rector is archdeacon. The diocesan leadership is very engaged in maintaining orthodoxy, and I always look forward to Bp. Julian's visits.

 

@Rexlion do yall ordain women?

 

It's been over a year since the rector discussed this with all of us, so my recollection is hazy. Near as I can recall, there are some female deacons who were 'grandmothered in' to the diocese, but I don't think any more are being ordained (as a matter of policy); I don't think there are any female priests in the diocese (but I could be remembering wrong) and they won't ordain any new ones.

 

Hopefully I’m not misremembering this, but if my recollection is correct, the wife of Bishop Dobbs was actually a TEC female priest (together with him). And once they entered ACNA, she threw her collar off, and has been serving the church in lay capacity as a matter of principle. It’s one of the most heroic witnesses to the apostolic church in modern Anglican history.

 

So yeah, it looks like the clergy coming out of the Diocese of Albany will be joining in under Bishop Dobbs:
https://virtueonline.org/some-albany-episcopal-clergy-join-anglican-church-north-america

That means that Albany's women priests won't be able to transfer over.

 

That is great news

 

Yep. Letting in too many all at once is going to create the problems we have now.

 

That's doubtful. I'm a member in the Diocese of Springfield and there is just not the support for the ACNA here. Especially after the Diocese of Quincy left the Episcopal Church. With them leaving that left a sour taste in much of the diocese. In fact, most of the clergy don't support Bishop Martins' handling of the LGBTQ+ community in the diocese. After a church left to go under the oversight of the Bishop (not sure his/her name) of the Diocese of Northern Indiana (I believe that it was that diocese), he released a letter in response about "Biblical marriage" and how homosexuality/being trans is a sin. In turn there was pushback. Most people within my congregation disagree with him on this, including myself. I do like Bishop Martins, especially as an Anglo-Catholic myself, I just disagree with him on this issue. However, that is just my view. We'll see after our new Bishop is elected and consecrated.

 

Was that Bp. Martins' 2015 statement, https://www.episcopalspringfield.org/a-word-on-holy-matrimony/ , or do you refer to a later letter? If a later letter, would you be able to provide a link? I did a quick search and only found the one from 2015; it's quite short and basically states that priests of the diocese may not bless same-sex unions (I don't see where it said that homosexuality is a sin per se). What, specifically, is the gist of your disagreement? Do you feel that two members of the same sex can be in marriage to each other in God's eyes? If so, could you explain your view with support from the Bible?

 

It is this one here from October 2019

https://www.episcopalspringfield.org/ourselves-our-souls-and-bodies/

I should rephrase what I said. It's been a while since I've read it, so I'm sure. Anyway, what I mean is that I'm not sure if in letter he said its a sin, but I know what he thinks as I've talked to him before on this issue. I believe that two men or women or someone in between can get married. As I'm under the impression from what I've read at least, is that Leviticus 18:22 is actually a mistranslation. Instead what it means is that a man cannot lay with a underage boy, as was practiced by pagans. It basically being a rule against pedophilia more so than homosexuality. I can be completely wrong on that. I'm willing to listen to your side or the opposing side (I don't want to assume your opinion on the matter). Then with Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe God destroyed not because of homosexuality, but because of the treatment of the angel and other sinful activities in the cities. Then with what St. Paul writes in First Corinthians sodomy, at least from what I've read, means in a non-loving way. I'll link some sources.

Here are some, I can link more if I missed anything.

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142?redirectedFrom=PDF

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom...part-ii-what-the-bible-does-and-does-not-say/

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/

https://c-ucc.org/open-and-affirmin...orinthians-69-10-and-the-heterosexual-agenda/

 

Those are pretty novel interpretations of scripture. For 2000 years they had been interpreted that way and now all of a sudden we know better. Seems kinda odd to me that we would know better than the people who lived in that time and spoke that language when they interpreted Scripture.

 

Well isn't that like with flat earth or evolution. We thought something for a long time, but new evidence presented itself we changed our mind. So with this we try to look closer and ignore biases in translation. The approach of we think something for a long time, so therefore it must be true is not a very scientific approach.

 

It is a lot different. With one yo have the people who spoke the language, who did not need translations, interpreting the Scriptures for us. They were against homosexual marriage and saw it as a sin. We don't, as Anglicans reinterpret scripture to fit our modern day. desires. We look at the Bible and then how the Church fathers interpreted scripture to know what it means. You don't have to look at biases in translation or new evidence. This was their language, their culture.