Irish Anglicans 'consecrate' first female bishop

[Santagranddad]

Today's Irish Indepedent reports that the 53 year old mother of two, Rev Pat Storey was 'consecrated' bishop of Meath and Kildare at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, on Saturday 30 November, 2013. This is a first in Ireland.

 

[Gayle]

Lord have mercy  ???

 

[Maria]

Lord have mercy.

St. Patrick intercede to God for us.

 

[Alpo]

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

 

[Nicene]

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Sure its news, bad news is still news.

 

[mike]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

 

[Byron]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Questioning one's intellectual capacity like this is an ad hominem argument that contributes nothing of substance to the discussion. Not only that, but it's also very insulting both to Mike and to those in this world who have real learning disabilities. When Mike insulted you like this on the Private Forum, he was permitted to do so, since he was posting on the Private Forum, where the rules are much more lenient; returning the insult on the Public Forum like this, however, is NOT permitted. Seeing that you have been warned before for such behavior, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 40 days. Continue this behavior and your discipline will become even harsher, so I advise you to use the time of this warning to examine your conduct on this forum and see how you can cease these public attacks on others.

As always, if you think my action wrong, please feel free to appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut​

 

[Ansgar]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Very nice.

 

[hecma925]

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Sure its news, bad news is still news.

Ireland is behind on the times.

 

[Santagranddad]

I am not sure in what sense Ireland is behind the times? Certainly others elsewhere have 'consecrated' women bishops, but following that example is hardly anything except a sign of the spirit of our age.

And international businesses including the IT crowd love being based there, an educated workforce and tax incentives to suit. Not like my day when cassocked black crows swept the streets and the first question you were asked in a Central Dublin labour exchange was, 'Did you drive tractor?'. A negative response would see half the vacancy cards elbowed aside.

Still when I was a child calling others names such as 'retard' was considered by our socially adept elders as both rude and a sign of immaturity.

 

[podkarpatska]

I am not sure in what sense Ireland is behind the times? Certainly others elsewhere have 'consecrated' women bishops, but following that example is hardly anything except a sign of the spirit of our age.

And international businesses including the IT crowd love being based there, an educated workforce and tax incentives to suit. Not like my day when cassocked black crows swept the streets and the first question you were asked in a Central Dublin labour exchange was, 'Did you drive tractor?'. A negative response would see half the vacancy cards elbowed aside.

Still when I was a child calling others names such as 'retard' was considered by our socially adept elders as both rude and a sign of immaturity.

In the United States the use of the word in question is unacceptable, having gained the same social and linguistic disapprobation as the words beginning with certain letters which negatively refer to persons of color and women.

 

[Santagranddad]

Still when I was a child calling others names such as 'retard' was considered by our socially adept elders as both rude and a sign of immaturity.

In the United States the use of the word in question is unacceptable, having gained the same social and linguistic disapprobation as the words beginning with certain letters which negatively refer to persons of color and women.
[/quote]

It is so considered here too. I have to confess to being more than a little shocked by its' use here on an Orthodox Christian website.

 

[Jetavan]

Britannia est omnis divisa in partes tres: catholica, haeresia, et hibernia.

 

[OrthoNoob]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Well played.

Though, in fairness, asking 'are you a retard?' may be slightly more offensive than asking 'are you retarded?', which is what the other posters in this thread are apparently unaware Michal did to you in the other thread.

 

[Ansgar]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Well played.

Though, in fairness, asking 'are you a retard?' may be slightly more offensive than asking 'are you retarded?', which is what the other posters in this thread are apparently unaware Michal did to you in the other thread.

You're right, I was. Still rude though, in both cases.

 

[Alpo]

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Sure its news, bad news is still news.

Even bad news cease to be news at some point. They accepted female priesthood ages ago.

 

[scamandrius]

Britannia est omnis divisa in partes tres: catholica, haeresia, et hibernia.

Based on the story, catholica and haeresia and hibernia are all synonyms. 

And I think you will offend a lot of people here who do not believe that Ireland is a part of Britain

 

[podkarpatska]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Well played.

Though, in fairness, asking 'are you a retard?' may be slightly more offensive than asking 'are you retarded?', which is what the other posters in this thread are apparently unaware Michal did to you in the other thread.

Again, in standard, contemporary American English usage, the "ad hominem" variants of this word, either as an adjective or a noun are not acceptable usage and are viewed by many as an obscene pejorative.

 

[mike]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Well played.

Though, in fairness, asking 'are you a retard?' may be slightly more offensive than asking 'are you retarded?', which is what the other posters in this thread are apparently unaware Michal did to you in the other thread.

Again, in standard, contemporary American English usage, the "ad hominem" variants of this word, either as an adjective or a noun are not acceptable usage and are viewed by many as an obscene pejorative.

Return to the thread.

 

[Byron]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Very nice.

It was Kalina that called me a retard first in the private section (which 000s) also view.

 

[Byron]

Axia!

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

Are you a retard?

Well played.

Though, in fairness, asking 'are you a retard?' may be slightly more offensive than asking 'are you retarded?', which is what the other posters in this thread are apparently unaware Michal did to you in the other thread.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think kalinas comment of axios was stupid in the extreme.

 

[Shlomlokh]

Anglicans being Anglicans. This is news?

They put a modest dress and hat with Christian symbolism on a woman to play dress up. I know kids who do this on the daily. I agree with those who say it isn't news. The Anglicans have driven themselves into irrelevancy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[augustin717]

No offense but you'd have to define what "irrelevancy" is, otherwise the archbishop of Canterbury is more widely known than the patriarch of Bulgaria.

 

[orthonorm]

Edited. Posted before seeing Mikal's note.

Sorry.

 

[orthonorm]

Who cares?

Really, there is no reason why a woman cannot be bishop. The only decent argument I ever heard put forth against women in the Priesthood was actually on oc.net. It was an allegorical argument and a good one. But still allegorical.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Still when I was a child calling others names such as 'retard' was considered by our socially adept elders as both rude and a sign of immaturity.

In the United States the use of the word in question is unacceptable, having gained the same social and linguistic disapprobation as the words beginning with certain letters which negatively refer to persons of color and women.

It is so considered here too. I have to confess to being more than a little shocked by its' use here on an Orthodox Christian website.
[/quote]

A website is not capable of either sanctification nor damnation. People on the other hand are capable of either, depending on their mood.

 

[Maria]

Who cares?

Really, there is no reason why a woman cannot be bishop. The only decent argument I ever heard put forth against women in the Priesthood was actually on oc.net. It was an allegorical argument and a good one. But still allegorical.

A woman can pretend to be a bishop, dress up in her mitre, and walk gracefully like one, but more importantly, is her position truly grace-filled and not merely graceful? Can she lay hands on people and ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops? No.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Who cares?

Really, there is no reason why a woman cannot be bishop. The only decent argument I ever heard put forth against women in the Priesthood was actually on oc.net. It was an allegorical argument and a good one. But still allegorical.

A woman can pretend to be a bishop, dress up in her mitre, and walk gracefully like one, but more importantly, is her position truly grace-filled and not merely graceful? Can she lay hands on people and ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops? No.

A man can pretend to be a bishop, dress up in his mitre, and walk gracefully like one, but more importantly, is his position truly grace-filled and not merely graceful? Can he lay hands on people and ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops apart from the community of the Church? No. The work of chrismating, ordaining deacons and priests, and consecrating bishops is rightly the work of the Church carried out by bishops of and within the Church. The grace needed to do this work is not intrinsic to the person of the bishop. A "bishop" outside the Church really isn't a bishop, anyway.

 

[Maria]

Who cares?

Really, there is no reason why a woman cannot be bishop. The only decent argument I ever heard put forth against women in the Priesthood was actually on oc.net. It was an allegorical argument and a good one. But still allegorical.

A woman can pretend to be a bishop, dress up in her mitre, and walk gracefully like one, but more importantly, is her position truly grace-filled and not merely graceful? Can she lay hands on people and ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops? No.

A man can pretend to be a bishop, dress up in his mitre, and walk gracefully like one, but more importantly, is his position truly grace-filled and not merely graceful? Can he lay hands on people and ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops apart from the community of the Church? No. The work of chrismating, ordaining deacons and priests, and consecrating bishops is rightly the work of the Church carried out by bishops of and within the Church. The grace needed to do this work is not intrinsic to the person of the bishop. A "bishop" outside the Church really isn't a bishop, anyway.

Very true.