oh my

[plaid_pixie]

what do ballet, indian chants, indian inscence, nad absolutely awful music have to do with the investiture of the new pb?

not to mention, she doesn't sound like a woman. also, her chasuble and mitre are absolutely ugly.

[plaid_pixie]

ok, whats up with the large jugs being carried on peoples shoulders?

[gtsecc]

oh no... I am afraid to ask.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I havn't a clue what this thread is about.

Somebody please enlighten me.

[IowaLutheran]

I havn't a clue what this thread is about.

Somebody please enlighten me.


Pictures are here:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79210_ENG_HTM.htm


You can watch the video here:

http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/

[Simon_Templar]

I don't know if the vestments she was wearing are normal or not.. but seriously are they are about the most garrish and ugly I think I've ever seen.

Seriously... bright green, bright purple, and bright blue... who thought this was a good idea?

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't see why it matters so much to some people what she was wearing... :scratch:

[SumTinWong]

I agree, who cares what she was wearing?

[Groce]

I don't see why it matters so much to some people what she was wearing... :scratch:

Right it does not matter what she was wearing, the fact that she is in that position to begin with is the problem. She almost said she is a unitarian the other day, and she is supposed to be our leader?

[Finella]

Since we're sharing subjective aesthetic opinions, I think her vestments are gorgeous. I haven't seen the video yet, but friends who watched it live said the music was fantastic and they loved the liturgy (and these friends are real LiturgiGeeks, as I lovingly call them).

I've heard the video was only going to stay up on the National Cathedral's website through today, so I'm going to try to catch it when I have some time later.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't know if the vestments she was wearing are normal or not.. but seriously are they are about the most garrish and ugly I think I've ever seen.

Seriously... bright green, bright purple, and bright blue... who thought this was a good idea?
Now that I've watched the video, the colour scheme makes more sense. It is actually a landscape scene; a sunrise, in fact. The green is the hills; the yellow and orange, sunrise; the blue is the sky above the sunrise, and the purple is the darker part above the blue which is the darkened sky. The whole thing carries through to her mitre, which is again purple, but deeper, and has a silver moon and misty cloud.

I think it is lovely.

[Aymn27]

Since we're sharing subjective aesthetic opinions, I think her vestments are gorgeous. I haven't seen the video yet, but friends who watched it live said the music was fantastic and they loved the liturgy (and these friends are real LiturgiGeeks, as I lovingly call them).

I've heard the video was only going to stay up on the National Cathedral's website through today, so I'm going to try to catch it when I have some time later.
I wonder why only a day? I've googled the service and only had like six pics come up - hmmmm.....

[karen freeinchristman]

I liked the homily as well.

[trooper]

I am a liturigeek myself. I found the whole thing horrible. I had a hard time watching. More circus than church, IMHO.

[higgs2]

Now that I've watched the video, the colour scheme makes more sense. It is actually a landscape scene; a sunrise, in fact. The green is the hills; the yellow and orange, sunrise; the blue is the sky above the sunrise, and the purple is the darker part above the blue which is the darkened sky. The whole thing carries through to her mitre, which is again purple, but deeper, and has a silver moon and misty cloud.

I think it is lovely.

Yes, I agree it was lovely!

And I'm so glad they had the Native American participation with the chanting and drumming and sage sticks. Especially since she is from the West. It was very moving when she pounded on the door with her staff, I expected her to knock with her hand, but it was so cool to see her rap on the door. It was really, really beautiful, and very reflective of the culture and heritage she brings to the job, which I think is quite fitting.

I don't know why what she wears matters so much to some. My theory is that this is something people do when women have positions of authority. Like the way everyone always commented on Hillary Clinton's haircut, or Elizabeth Dole's suits when she was running in the primaries. Whatever.

[Finella]

And the Native Americans are the largest non-white ethnic group in TEC (so says my campus ministry chaplain) so I think it was fantastic that they incorporated some Native American things.

higgs, you are definitely right about women in authority and the comments on how they dress. On the one hand, men usually don't have that much latitude when dressing, so their ability to express their style is pretty limited. But I never hear anyone comment on their ties, for instance, other than whether it's a republican or democrat wearing a red or blue tie.

I'm not sure why the webcast is going to be up for such a short period of time, Aaron... it seems silly to me, too.

[gtsecc]

Were the native American's even Christians or Episcopalians?

[higgs2]

Were the native American's even Christians or Episcopalians?

*Were* they? What do you mean were? Were when? Yesterday? And which tribes are you referring to? Were the Ancient Celts even Christian? :doh:

[higgs2]

And the Native Americans are the largest non-white ethnic group in TEC (so says my campus ministry chaplain) so I think it was fantastic that they incorporated some Native American things.

higgs, you are definitely right about women in authority and the comments on how they dress. On the one hand, men usually don't have that much latitude when dressing, so their ability to express their style is pretty limited. But I never hear anyone comment on their ties, for instance, other than whether it's a republican or democrat wearing a red or blue tie.

I'm not sure why the webcast is going to be up for such a short period of time, Aaron... it seems silly to me, too.

LOL! I'm remembering a big hoopla about an outfit Condi Rice wore to some state function.

[higgs2]

Were the Nigerians even Christian back before they were Christian?

[cenimo]

Looking at those pics make me ask what good is all of that when the basic belief is missing.
The whole thing is hollow.

[karen freeinchristman]

Looking at those pics make me ask what good is all of that when the basic belief is missing.

Can you expound on your phrase 'basic belief', please?

[Groce]

Looking at those pics make me ask what good is all of that when the basic belief is missing.
The whole thing is hollow.

Exactly.

[higgs2]

Looking at those pics make me ask what good is all of that when the basic belief is missing.
The whole thing is hollow.

Basic belief? Is the core of Christianity supposed to be based on who we *don't* ordain? :eek:

[Finella]

Were the native American's even Christians or Episcopalians?
Wow, um, I just don't know what to say to that.

[No Swansong]

*Were* they? What do you mean were? Were when? Yesterday? And which tribes are you referring to? Were the Ancient Celts even Christian? :doh:
Higgs I think you know he is referring to the Native Americans that took part in her investiture.

[Finella]

Higgs I think you know he is referring to the Native Americans that took part in her investiture.
Ah, internet communication, isn't it grand...

I'm sure they were Episcopalians, as I said, Native Americans are the largest non-white ethnic group in the Episcopal Church. Why would they have non-Christian Native Americans at the investiture?

[Finella]

btw, it looks like the investiture will be available on DVD later this month, and the Episcopal Church website is still showing the streaming video.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79377_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined

[gtsecc]

Ah, internet communication, isn't it grand...

I'm sure they were Episcopalians, as I said, Native Americans are the largest non-white ethnic group in the Episcopal Church. Why would they have non-Christian Native Americans at the investiture?
I don't know. They DID have a non-Christian Rabbi, and a non-Christian Muslim there.

[IowaLutheran]

Were the native American's even Christians or Episcopalians?


The Episcopal Church has a strong presence both on and off reservations. Here in Sioux City, there are three Episcopal churches, and one of them is "St. Paul's Indian Mission".

A map of religious preferences is quite revealing in this regard. http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/episcopal.gif

Please note that the area with the highest percentage of Episcopalians in the country is western South Dakota. Then compare that map with a map of reservations in the continental U.S.:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM

So, I don't know the answer to your specific question, but statistically, if a person is Native American, there is a better chance that they are Episcopalian than any other ethnic group.

[higgs2]

Higgs I think you know he is referring to the Native Americans that took part in her investiture.

No, actually I didn't know that. I thought he was talking about them as a whole, not the specific ones at the consecration. But it certainly makes more sense if you're right! THank you, I just couldn't see it in that light until you pointed it out.

[chalice_thunder]

I don't know. They DID have a non-Christian Rabbi, and a non-Christian Muslim there.
That's because she represents one of the great faith traditions. Therefore, it is not only appropriate, but a wonderful gesture of welcome and honor for representatives of OTHER faith traditions to be present.

BTW, there are LOTS of Native American Episcopalians. Anumber of dioceses have whole commissions on Native American ministry.

One of the "mitres" used by former Bp. Bob Anderson from Minnesota was an Ojibway chieftan's head dress. In that diocese there was a huge population of Native American Episcopalians.

[higgs2]

So, if jtbdad is right about your meaning, gtsecc, please forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

I do think the NA's were probably Episcopalians, fwiw.

[gtsecc]

That is fantastic!
I am happy about that.
I do however think it was a legitimate question.
It is ok to ask questions, isn't it?
In that this was an installation, and not a consecration, I actually think it may have been appropriate for her to have the Muslim and Rabbi there.

[chalice_thunder]

That is fantastic!
I am happy about that.
I do however think it was a legitimate question.
It is ok to ask questions, isn't it?
In that this was an installation, and not a consecration, I actually think it may have been appropriate for her to have the Muslim and Rabbi there.
I can make a case for having such representatives at a consecration as well...they bring their prayers and good wishes to her/him and to the congregation as she/he is consecrated.

Certainly the invitation MUST be extended, at least.

[karen freeinchristman]

Bishop Schori is a bridge-builder!

[Groce]

Bishop Schori is a bridge-builder!

Burner is more like it.

[gtsecc]

.

[gtsecc]

The Bishop is the source of unity in the church for the first few centuries of Christianity. This is easily verified by the historical record and writings of the church.

This Bishop is not a source of unity in ECUSA or the larger communion.

This is problematic.

Bishops are for preserving the faith.

Her view of Bishops is that they are to fiddle with the faith to make it relevant to the culture.

This is a completely new, and radical view of the Episcopate.

She could possibly be correct, but we can’t know she is correct because we are hearing multiple voices. Which voice is correct? The One that is consistent for 2,000 years, or the new one, not even echoed across the land, much less time.

For me, I will go with what was believed always and everywhere, for there is the Catholic faith.

[higgs2]

Bishop Schori is a bridge-builder!

Yes :) I would never make a comment about a connection between that quality and the female sex. :cool:

[chalice_thunder]

Burner is more like it.
You know, you have not even given her a chance.

My guess is, you and others will be looking for reasons to pounce upon her.

Do you not think that she is prayerfully striving to do God's will?

[chalice_thunder]

The Bishop is the source of unity in the church for the first few centuries of Christianity. This is easily verified by the historical record and writings of the church.

This Bishop is not a source of unity in ECUSA or the larger communion.

This is problematic.

Bishops are for preserving the faith.

Her view of Bishops is that they are to fiddle with the faith to make it relevant to the culture.

This is a completely new, and radical view of the Episcopate.

She could possibly be correct, but we can’t know she is correct because we are hearing multiple voices. Which voice is correct? The One that is consistent for 2,000 years, or the new one, not even echoed across the land, much less time.

For me, I will go with what was believed always and everywhere, for there is the Catholic faith.

I believe she is trying to be a source for unity.

But it all depends on how people define unity.

Are we unified on women's ordination?
Are we unified on gay ordination or marriage?
Are we unified on the filioque clause?
Are we unified on the '79 BCP?

Or maybe, are we unified on the fact that Christ is made the sure foundation - Christ the head and cornerstone?

[No Swansong]

You know, you have not even given her a chance.

My guess is, you and others will be looking for reasons to pounce upon her.

Do you not think that she is prayerfully striving to do God's will?
Well since someone asked I will respond

My simple answer is I am not sure. I believe she has an agenda and that is social engineering. I haven't quite figured out how Christ fits into that or if He even does considering that she does not believe Him to be the only way to the Father.

[No Swansong]

I believe she is trying to be a source for unity.

But it all depends on how people define unity.

Are we unified on women's ordination?
Are we unified on gay ordination or marriage?
Are we unified on the filioque clause?
Are we unified on the '79 BCP?

Or maybe, are we unified on the fact that Christ is made the sure foundation - Christ the head and cornerstone?
It would help if we knew that she believed Him to be the sure foundation, the Cornerstone.

[chalice_thunder]

Well since someone asked I will respond

My simple answer is I am not sure. I believe she has an agenda and that is social engineering. I haven't quite figured out how Christ fits into that or if He even does considering that she does not believe Him to be the only way to the Father.
The fact that you do not automatically give her the benefit of assuming that she is a woman of prayer appears to speak to your own agenda of turning back the direction of the church.

And in answer to your next post - ++Katherine and progressives in the church still claim Christ as the head and cornerstone...please don't insinuate that this is not the case.

[Aymn27]

You know, you have not even given her a chance.I will agree with you here. Only time will tell - but I do have to say she has a history - and I don't see her straying very far off the beaten path. Likewise, she came out of the gate with the "our mother jesus" sermon...I see no bridge-building ahead.

My guess is, you and others will be looking for reasons to pounce upon her.Indeed, just as you and others will be looking for affirmation of her views and acceptance of them at any cost. It is only human nature.

I am honestly of the opinion that her ceremony, her election, her installation is all moot - we [orthodox anglicans] are no longer in communion with TEC. The bickering, insulting, etc needs to cease and all need to accept where we are. The divorce has happened - let the children go with the parent of choice and leave well enough alone. It is time to go on about Christ's work and we shall see the fruit of our labors.


Do you not think that she is prayerfully striving to do God's will?
Probably so...but like the rest of us..only on her terms

[No Swansong]

The fact that you do not automatically give her the benefit of assuming that she is a woman of prayer appears to speak to your own agenda of turning back the direction of the church.

And in answer to your next post - ++Katherine and progressives in the church still claim Christ as the head and cornerstone...please don't insinuate that this is not the case.
I don't assume anyone is a person of prayer: her, Benedict, Pope Shenouda, my own pastor or my own wife. Assumptions simply aren't safe.
I have no agenda. I have no problem with a woman as PB, I simply have a problem with this person as PB. She is not qualified in my opinion, is a poor communicator, and has, as far as I know, never affirmed that she believes Christ to be the Only Way to the Father. This is important to me because the only comments I have ever read from her about the subject actually gives me reason to believe that she does not affirm this basic tenet of Christianity.
I am sure there are women out there who are qualified to be PB and if not I am sure there will be.

[chalice_thunder]

I will agree with you here. Only time will tell - but I do have to say she has a history - and I don't see her straying very far off the beaten path. Likewise, she came out of the gate with the "our mother jesus" sermon...I see no bridge-building ahead. [\QUOTE]

I see plenty of bridge building - so I hope you are wrong on this.:wave:

[QUOTE=Aymn27;28700717]
Indeed, just as you and others will be looking for affirmation of her views and acceptance of them at any cost. It is only human nature.
Untrue. I am just hoping for the best. When Lord Carey became ABC, I knew that I did not share much of his rather conservative views, but I did not go looking for ways to attack him or his theological viewpoints.

we [orthodox anglicans] are no longer in communion with TEC.
I find that terribly sad. We (liberal Anglicans) are still in communion with YOU. There's always a place at the table for you - and I would fight anyone in the church who wanted to keep you out.


The bickering, insulting, etc needs to cease and all need to accept where we are.
No argument here.:)

The divorce has happened -
Again, very sad that part of the church feels this way.

let the children go with the parent of choice and leave well enough alone. It is time to go on about Christ's work and we shall see the fruit of our labors.

We have consistently been about Christ's work - and when I say 'we' I am assuming that means you too.

Seperating ourselves one from another is contrary to Christ's work, I believe.