I understand that church is supposed to be a safe place in the world and not another war zone in the culture wars.

With due respect to Brad Drell, who seems like a decent and intelligent man, that statement partakes of the same gnostic essence one finds in TEC. The members of the Church always have and always will bring their cultures and their own fallen natures into the Church. What is wanted is not a culture-free Church, but a Church one can rely on to hold to the Faith once delivered to the saints, within which our fallen nature is confronted (yes, there is no charity without honesty) and healed, and our cultures are transcended, clearing away the cultural blinders and celebrating the godly aspects of each culture.

Hallelujah for people like Brad Drell who see clearly what words mean, and give us eyes to see as well.

Although I have left ACoC and joined the Common Cause group, I still understand why some parishes and some bishops can make a decision to stay in TEC or ACoC. For many people, church is just local. They do not read or hear about the tidal wave of liberalism, nor do they really care. They want to “live in the present” and not worry too much about the future.

The problem of course is that they are complicit in the scorched earth that will be left for the next generation. They could have planted a faithful church in healthy soil while their parish was still healthy, but instead due to their negligence there will be no healthy and vigorous Anglican church in their neighbourhood when their parish falls to the rot that is systemic in the national church.

Greetings in Jesus.
I hope all had a great thanksgiving. As Christians we do not need to be fighting over different opinions.

I will tell the so called conservatives who are staying in TEC for their own selfish reasons. The time to get out is NOW. Yes the time is to get out NOW. If you want to remain an Anglican Christian, the time is to get out of TEC NOW. Yes I can not say it enough it is time to get out of TEC NOW!!!!!!!

If you are a true Christian, you can not stay in TEC because it has fallen into an unholy alliance with the The Devil. An unholy darkness has engulfed TEC. There is no turning back. Nor does TEC want to turn back or repent. Those Christians, be it they are conservative or liberal, stay in TEC, then there is no truth in them.

The deal is to get out NOW while the getting is good. On December 3rd God will bring the new province into existence. After then God will destroy TEC. All who are staying in TEC after December 3rd is damned.

The time to get out of TEC is NOW!
Amen

+Stonewall

+Stonwall -
After then God will destroy TEC. All who are staying in TEC after December 3rd is damned.

I would not go so far. Some may remain part of TEC after December 3rd and then finally wake up to reality and leave. I would expect that a merciful and just God would forgive their tardiness. After all, this ain’t Sodom and Gomorrah we are talking about. I don’t expect God to rain down fire from Heaven on 815 Second Avenue.

FW Ken -

You make some excellent points. My understanding of a Christian community is a group of people who are counter-cultural in the best sense of that term.

The “inside strategy” seems to have decayed into Operation Banquo’s Ghost – the battle being irretrievably lost, the losers are just going to sit around trying to guilt-trip the winners. They remind me of Charles Lamb’s description of a Poor Relation: “the most irrelevant thing in nature–a piece of impertinent correspondency, an odious approximation, a haunting conscience, a preposterous shadow lengthening in the noontide of your prosperity, and unwelcome remembrancer, a perpetually recurring mortification, a drain on your purse, a more intolerable dun upon your pride, a drawback upon success, a rebuke to your rising, a stain in your blood, a blot on your ‘scutcheon, a rent in your garmet, a death’s-head at your banquet,–Agathocles’ pot, a Mordecai in your gate, a Lazarus at your door, a lion in your path, a frog in your chamber, a fly in your ointment, a mote in your eye, a triumph to your enemy, an apology to your friends, the one thing not needful, the hail in harvest, the ounce of sour in a pound of sweet.”

As Brad Drell says, this isn’t a “strategy”, since that’s plan of action designed to achieve some purpose. Here, the only purpose is to embody failure – the failure of Christians to rescue their dead church in time, and the failure of the heretics to achieve 100% triumph. They’re starting to remind me of Ralphie’s fantasy in ‘A Christmas Carol’, of returning home blind, tapping his little cane on the floor, and eliciting wails of sorrow and regret from his parents, now that it’s too late. “And THEN they’ll be sorry!”

Mr. Lewis,
I understand your opinion have you noticed the desecretion and degradation that TEC has done in turning against God?
TEC is leading souls to Hell.
All the homosexuality they are pushing along with every other perversion is against will of God, so therefore has TEC not become Sodom and Gomorrah? The answer is yes.
+Stonewall

I have bit my tongue on this long enough.

It is a commonplace wisdom among Anglicans and other protestants that God calls various people in various directions for various reasons known only to him.

Bullcrap.

God does not call us to confusion and chaos. He calls us to clarity and unity in his one and only Body.

The Anglican tendency to muddy the waters of every question and every issue rather than to seek and proclaim clarity is precisely why the Communion is now in complete disarray. So, stop it already.

God is not calling anyone to form yet another denomination. God is not calling anyone to remain in a heretical denomination. God calls all people to his one Church.

Discern it. And get your butts in it.

We will be glad to welcome you all home.

Blessed Advent to all.

Fr. J.

The “inside” parishes cannot endure. Someday, their clergy will need to be replaced. Where will those clergy be trained? How will the parish call a believing priest when the revisionist bishop won’t permit it? If their current bishop is what now passes as conservative, how will they replace him with another when the consents won’t be given? The idea is not sustainable.

And how will these people justify in their consciences sending the parish tithe to a diocese, and through it to a national church, which preaches heresy?

Father J is right.

Oh, the idea of one continuing on living as a witness within the fallen TEC does bring to mind Malcolm Muggeridge’s autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time. Malcolm Muggeridge, being raised a proper socialist in England naturally thought the Worker’s Paradise was hot stuff. And so he and his wife sold all of their possessions to go live there because in the People’s Paradise you don’t need anything as all your needs shall be. Malcolm’s job, a correspondent to various British rags, opened doors for them, socially. He described some Russians notables that were still living the wrecked shells of their pre-1917 lives as the one who the Revolutionaries had decided were “too unimportant” for execution.

How many Episcopalians (for whatever reasons) are too willing to be deemed unimportant for execution by 815 and its fellow travelers?

It was when Malcolm was on the train back to England fleeing the People’s Paradise, that he realised the large fences erected at the border was not to keep people from entering the Worker’s Paradise but to keep people from fleeing the People’s Paradise.

I also agree with Father J, but as a Catholic, that’s a subject I just don’t feel qualified to address myself. This business of being “called” to do this or that, no matter how lunatic, is far too similar to the excuses given by TEC members for women’s ordination, homosexual marriage, hybrid religiosity, and every other abuse you can mention. Everyone is “called”, it seems. God talks to everyone, and he personally authorizes them to do exactly what they’re emotionally wound up and determined to do. As Fr. J said, it’s a very Protestant thing, and being a Catholic largely frees one from the “It can’t be wrong, ‘Cause it feels so right” trap.

The story about Malcolm Muggeridge that I thought of was when he likened his journalism to playing the piano in a bordello. Every now and then, among the honky-tonk tunes, he’d play “Abide With Me”, in the hopes of doing some good.

Should have just looked up the quote instead of tossing it off from memory:

On television I feel like a man playing piano in a brothel; every now and again he solaces himself by playing ‘Abide with Me’ in the hope of edifying both the clients and the inmates.

We all always, all of us in all times and in all places, “called” to Truth. We are also, each of us in a specific place and time, “called” to tasks – apostolic endeavors as small as cooking for a parish function or as large as an on-going program for the homeless, alcoholics, or whatever – to states of life -married, single, vowed, ordained, lay, etc., to all the myriad facets of human existence. Even these private – or, better, “personal” – callings are best played out under the authority (charismatics call it “covering”) of the Body of Christ.

Truly, a lot of mischief is worked these days by self-appointed apostles – Catholics, protestants, and (probably) Orthodox alike – running around announcing “new things” the Spirit is (allegedly) doing.

I am a big fan of Brad Drell, for all that I have also been a critic of his continued support of an inside strategy. He comes from one of those families who effectively hand down their seats on the vestry and standing committee from generation to generation. He is also a dedicated member of the Kairo Prison Ministry, which is closely tied to TEC in LA. He has stayed for all the right reasons, but I find it encouraging that he is starting to see the futility of remaining, and to question the wisdom of his fine bishop in this path. TEC is indeed a battle zone, but except from the point of human pride, this is not a battle which must be fought and won. One can simply walk away to other existing or new faithful groupings. Painful, but if Brad can get it, others can as well.

Treg

Dr. Mabuse: “This business of being “called” to do this or that, no matter how lunatic, is far too similar to the excuses given by TEC members for women’s ordination, homosexual marriage, hybrid religiosity, and every other abuse you can mention. Everyone is “called”, it seems. God talks to everyone, and he personally authorizes them to do exactly what they’re emotionally wound up and determined to do.”

Amen and amen. I have read Rob Eaton+, Jackie Bruschi, Jill Woodliff (among many others) write that they are “called” to remain in TEc.

Saying that you’re “called” by God just puts up a subjective inarguable, unassailable position from which to pursue your own, oftentimes sinful, desires. Didn’t Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones, +V.G. Robinson, et al also say they were called too?

Sarah Hey: “AndrewA—I think they have addressed the “we’re going to reform TEC” idea—like I’ve been saying for years in article after article after article—the national entities of TEC are not going to be reformed.”

Followed later in the same comment by…

“The answer is—if you’re not going to work for reform of your diocese, and if you feel no calling to stay in a corrupt and evil diocese to take a public stand against the diocesan leadership—then you will have to leave TEC.”

#1. Sarah stipulates that TEc is irreformable. But if you work to reform a TEc diocese (as foolish as that may be), aren’t you then working to reform TEc? One little stone bridge by one little stone bridge? Is there not a contradiction here by the fatmouth Sarah Hey?

#2. Note Sarah’s phrasing here of feeling a calling (or in this case, feeling no call) as to whether one should stay or not stay in TEc. Dr. Mabuse wonderfully punctures this nonsense in her astute comment above.

I stopped reading ST the day Sarah Hey wrote (basically) it was a great day to be an Episcopalian. That was the day when the libs in TEC had done something completely illegal to some (conservative) bishop and no one could stop them. It was Ms. Hey’s premise that the libs had finally exposed themselves for what they were for everyone to see. Which was true. And this was the great day aspect of her argument.

What Ms.Hey’s argument overlooked was the obvious : There was no longer anyone left in the Episcopal church to stop the libs from doing whatever they wanted. Whatever illegal thing they did with that Bishop has stood. And they are free to do more and will.

In other words, what the Reformers of the Reformation declared about the Catholic Church back at the Reformation – that it was incapable of reformation from within – seems to have come about, some 450+ years later to TEC.

But, where the reformers of the Reformation really correct to declare that the Catholic Church is incapable of reformation within? There’s 450+ years of recorded Catholic Church history to study to decide if they were.

Mrs. Lawrence –
But, where the reformers of the Reformation really correct to declare that the Catholic Church is incapable of reformation within? There’s 450+ years of recorded Catholic Church history to study to decide if they were.

Since you brought up the subject, the answer – or at least my answer – is that the Roman Catholic Church refused to reform at the time of the Reformation, which is the biggest reason that there are now so many different “brands” of Protestant denominations now. Rome’s continued political machinations during the time of Henry VIII were a large cause for his break with Rome. [Note: I realize that Henry had some other issues involved, but the desire for a male heir might not have been such a big deal had not the Roman Powers That Be been so obviously in bed with the Spanish.] Rome’s continued political machinations prevented Luther’s reform effort and so Germany was eventually lost.

Rome eventually did do away with the abuses of Indulgences and other evil and worldly practices. But by that time, the damage had been done. Perhaps it took the disaster of the Reformation to compel reform within the Roman hierarchy. In that case, one could argue that the Reformation was necessary to reform the Roman Church. But it certainly came at a very high price.

TU..AD -
I think you recognize that I have always considered Sarah Hey as too politically oriented. Basically Sarah’s argument has always been to fight fire with fire, learn to out-organize the Worthy Opponents, etc., etc.. While the imagery of “Little Stone Bridges” was wistfully Romantic and evocative of glorious Last Stands and all that, it did nothing to further the establishment of God’s Kingdom. It is on that point that I disagree with her strongly.

Christianity is not about political organization. It is about calling people to join a community in which we are all accountable to one another; where our brother’s (or sister’s) welfare is as important a concern as our own; where we band together as Christian Aliens in the midst of a hostile culture for mutual support (to use Willimon’s and Haurrwas’ image); and where we worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. For that reason, we will suffer, because being a faithful Christian demands that we deny ourselves and our worldly ambitions. That last is going to bring us into conflict with the rest of the culture. That conflict will cause us to endure more suffering. The suffering that faithful believers experienced within TEC should have been a clue.

It has been fairly obvious for quite some time that the levers of power within TEC are firmly in the hands of the revisionists. General Convention in 2009 will pass major changes in the disciplinary canons which will make it much more difficult for that power to be challenged by anyone within TEC. The one hope was that discipline by the Anglican Communion would shock TEC back into her senses. But it is obvious that the rot has spread throughout most of the western provinces within the Communion. The Church of England is about as bad as TEC, Canada is a shambles, and most of Australia is in the revisionist camp. The only “orthodox” province in Australia is advocating for Lay Presidency at the Eucharist. So much for orthodoxy there!

So it is very doubtful that the Communion will be of much help. So a parallel province seems to be the best solution. I think that eventually GAFCON will have to split from Canterbury, but that will take some time. So it is going to be a very messy bust up before all the dust settles. Then we will be blessed with another entity that claims to be the “true expression of Anglicanism” in this country. All of this because a group of fallen human beings insisted on having there corrupt lifestyles declared “AOK” by a so-called Christian organization.

I can’t wait.

“Christianity is not about political organization. It is about calling people to join a community in which we are all accountable to one another; where our brother’s (or sister’s) welfare is as important a concern as our own; where we band together as Christian Aliens in the midst of a hostile culture for mutual support (to use Willimon’s and Haurrwas’ image); and where we worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.”

Triple Amen, Allen.
One of your best statements ever among many greats!
Beautiful description of the Body of Christ.
I’m so excited about December 3, 2008!

If you want to see a lovely example of the NEW North American Anglican Province at parish level go here http://www.saint-peters.net/

You can see the emphasis on Biblical education, hear some of the sermons (today’s by the youngest associate rector was splendid) but try not to be too envious.

Greetings in Jesus,
I have bit my tongue long enough and now I shall give the clarity needed.

Fr. J. is only concerned in keeping TEC together.

He talks about clarity. And he wants clarity. Now I will give it to you.

The Holy Bible is the Infallible Word of God. The Holy Bible is very plain and specifically clear on what God says about sin, period. Does not matter what sin it is. All sin is the same in the eyes of God. Be it a small or large sin its all equal.

God made His judgement concerning the sin of man 2,000 years ago on that cross at Golgotha so that we may have eternal life.

When a church gets into politics for selfish reasons to promote every liberal sin that can be had is totally wrong. When a church promotes sin as being ok from little white lies, to jaywalking, to adultery, to income tax evasion, to sodomy and homosexuality, to abortion, to euthanasia, is all COOL then that is when it is time to leave. When a church denies Jesus as the son of God and the only way to God and the Scriptures as the supreme authority, then it is time to go. When a church is promoting non stop blasphemy against The Holy Ghost saying that The Holy Ghost is telling them that its ok to live in sin then its time to go. When a church says The Holy Ghost is giving the people a new revelation, then its time to go. When people continue to believe that its morally right to stay in a church in which they think they have been called to stay in as a witness, then its time to go. TEC has deliberately on purpose embraced the sins of this world knowing full well what they are doing is wrong. But they deliberately will not change or repent.

I will tell you this. Not once, NO not ever HAS The Holy Ghost ever told man to live in SIN! The Holy Ghost has not ever told man to never repent of that SIN! Not once has The Holy Ghost ever did anything contrary to The Holy Bible, never.

Those who run around saying that The Holy Ghost is telling them to keep living in sin and never repent of it, does not have Truth in them. They are full of bullcrap. With these people doing this is direct blasphemy against The Holy Ghost according to St. Mark 3: 28-29. “Sins against The Father and The Son will be forgiven, but sin against The Holy Ghost will not be forgiven, it brings eternal damnation.”

TEC thinks as a church it is going to go to heaven cause it is owed by God salvation for being socially active? No it is not. That is not how God works.

TEC thinks as a social service agency that it is going to go to heaven cause of all the welfare charities they donate money or man power too? No it is not.

TEC thinks that its ministers are automatically owed salvation because of them being in holy orders? No, that does not work.

TEC is going down with Satan because they deliberately continue to thumb their nose at God. It is already too late for the ship God has already passed His judgement.

There is no way that God is behind TEC in any evil that is does. It stems from deep demonic influence and depression. There is no ifs, ands or buts. Its all from The Devil.

+Stonewall

Mr. Lewis -

I do think your point is true that it took the protestant reformation to spur the Catholic reformation enacted at Trent. On the other hand, by the time things settled out, it wasn’t the abuses of indulgences at issue on the protestant side, but indulgences (and purgatory, and the treasury of merit) that were rejected. Also (and I need to pull out my Haigh), but I think general consensus is that Henry was about the heir. Heavens, you had learned treatises being written on the validity of Henry’s marriage to Katherine and I doubt that would have been a meaningful process were it all about politics.

Anyway, was it that Rome was in bed with Spain, or under seige by Spain? Amazing what impact an army at the gates might have, eh? Theology aside…

The Resurrection and The Life.

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ. This sermon

will be direct to the point like a bullet to the

target. The point is that Jesus meant what He said

about Him being the only life. “Peace be still and

know that I am your Lord and your God” according to

Psalms 46: 10, as we can only find peace in The

Emperor, which is God himself. We can not find peace

of God in any other religion. We are guaranteed to

find the restful peace in Jesus when we accept Him as

our Lord and Saviour. We accept Him because He is The

Resurrection and The Life according to St. John 11:25.

There are the other pagan religions in this world that

was started by Satan to seduce the lost and the

Christians into the dark side. How many of these

pagan religions can even dare to muster a saviour who

has died for us? This they can not do. Not one of

them can. How many of the fallen prophets of

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and Scientology can

claim that any of have come back from the dead? Only

Christianity has that distinction in human history

that their saviour arose again from the dead. With

Jesus coming back from the dead has been proven to be

the greatest event to ever occur, because He did not

die again. Jesus spent forty days on Earth

preaching and teaching until He ascended into heaven.

He was seen by the disciples alive. He was seen by

more then five hundred people at one time alive. He

was even seen by large crowds in and around Jerusalem

ascending into heaven.

There are those in the church itself, both clergy and

laity alike, who have been blinded by Satan into

believing that the resurrection never happened. Ones

like James Pike, John Shelby Spong, and many others

who profess they are Christians have claimed that the

resurrection never took place. Here man is relying on

his own wisdom. The sad heresy is they actually

believe that you can reason your way into paradise.

There is no way a person can think their way into

heaven.

Why they chose to to disbelieve that the resurrection

never occurred is because that God gave them the gift

of free will. It is man’s fallen nature to follow

Satan. God allowed this to happen because He is

separating the wheat of the believers from the weed of

the disbelievers.

You can not have it any other way of believing in the

Sacred Scriptures. You can not pick and choose what

to believe and to ignore in the Bible. The Bible is

the whole Word of God. You either believe it in its

whole entirety or you reject it in its entirety.

When Jesus said that He is The Resurrection and The

Life, He meant it. He would not have made such a

statement if He truly was not the Son of the Living

God. Those who choose to claim the resurrection never

took place do so because they do not want to be held

accountable for their sins. They want to get to

heaven their own way. In the Bible it says you do it

God’s way or not at all.

+Stonewall

Ken,

I once read something to the effect that when the Pope got the request from Henry, he was basically a prisoner of Charles V(the Sack of Rome occurred somewhere around that time), the nephew(?) of Catherine of Aragon. So something that might normally have been routinely granted obviously was not.

Quite right, Mr. Johnson. Charles V did not want Henry VIII to split up with his aunt, as it would lessen Hapsburg influence at the English court and jeopardize his scheme to encircle, isolate, and in the end overthrow the French monarchy.

The temporal politics of Europe in the early 16th century were driven by a couple of quite simple factors: first, the overwhelming threat of invasion by the Turks; second, the long dynastic squabble between the Hapsburgs and the French kings to decide who should lead the crusade that both sides regarded as urgently necessary.

In the end, of course, Europe remained divided, was indeed re-divided by the Reformation, and the Turks retain a toehold on the continent to this day. Charles made England a permanent enemy, to the detriment of Spain, the Empire, and the Church.

Of course, without Henry VIII’s break from Rome, we should never have had an Anglican communion, an Episcopal Church in the U.S., or the wonderfully farcical spectacle of Ms. Schori angrily lecturing faithful Christians on the evils of schism. This goes to show that silver is a rare metal wrapped thinly around large black clouds.

Stonewall,

You have very seriously misunderstood me. I am a Catholic priest. And, as I said, God does not call anyone to remain in a heretical denomination (TEC). Nor does God call anyone to form yet another denomination, nor does he call various people to disparate denominations. Rather he calls all to his one Church.

And you, Rev. Stonewall, will be welcome home in his Church whenever you are ready.

God Bless,

Fr. J.

Allen Lewis: “TU..AD -
I think you recognize that I have always considered Sarah Hey as too politically oriented. Basically Sarah’s argument has always been to fight fire with fire, learn to out-organize the Worthy Opponents, etc., etc.. While the imagery of “Little Stone Bridges” was wistfully Romantic and evocative of glorious Last Stands and all that, it did nothing to further the establishment of God’s Kingdom. It is on that point that I disagree with her strongly.

Christianity is not about political organization.”

Sarah Hey: “Just so you know . . . .

I attribute much that has gone wrong with traditional Episcopalians in TEC to the pietistic notion that they shouldn’t soil their hands with church politics over the past 30 years.”

Neutral Corners ……. title of CJ’s blog post.

Allen Lewis, according to Sarah Hey, you may have these high-falutin’ pietistic notions such that you and your fellow pietists are the cause of much that has gone wrong with the traditional Episcopalians in TEc.

Again, Father J is right.

Mr. Lewis, Reformation history is complex and my question was (perhaps) too simple for such a complexity, but, I do believe you do say the Catholic Church is capable of reformation from within. How the reformation from within came about is something that can be argued by all of us for the next 450+ years.

Oh and many thanks for answering it so nicely.

I get rather tired of writing the same thing over and over (and often providing references to document my assertions), and then seeing the same s**t floating up again and again, as though I had said nothing. I know that his may sound petulant and arrogant, but in this case it is also fact.

References:

*Henry VIII* by J. J. Scarisbrick (1966)

*The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII* by H. A. Kelly (1976; reprinted by Wipf & Stock, 2008)

Look, say what you like about the Renaissance papacy and corrupt popes like Alexander VI and Julius III, but there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell that Henry VIII ever could have gotten his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. Henry’s whole case rested on the assertion that (a) Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 was a divine law of perpetual validity that forbade always and everywhere the marriage of a man to his deceased brother’s widow, (b) that Deuteronomy 25:5 had been a divinely-mandated exemption to the Levitical prohibition that has expired with the end of the old Mosaic Covenant, and (c) that, in consequence, no pope had the authority to grant a man a dispensation to marry his brother’s widow, for however long a time popes had been doing precisely that.

Henry forced all his canonical advocates to argue along these lines, even though many of them thought that he was wrecking whatever chances he might have had to get an annulment from the weak and vacillating, although not vicious or immoral Pope Clement VII — whose great fear seems to have been that his illegitimate birth (he was a bastard son of the younger brother of Lorenzo de’ Medici [1449-1492], ruler of Florence [the father of Pope Leo X], Giuliano, who has been murdered in 1478) would be used to try to declare his election as pope in 1523 uncanonical. Popes had been granting dispensations for such marriages for centuries, and the dominant exegetical view in the Middle Ages was that the passages in Leviticus condemned committing adultry with a brother’s wife, not marriage to his widow, and that the passage in Deuteronomy showed that the canonical prohibition of such marriages was a matter of Church Law, not Divine Law, and, thus, that the Church authorities (especially the pope) had the authority to dispense men from that prohibition and allow such marriages.

Henry VIII’s careful and legal-minded father, Henry VII, when his eldest son Arthur had died in 1502, a few months after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, wishing to marry the widow to his only remaining son, the future Henry VIII, had collaborated with Catherine’s father, Ferdinand of Aragon, to obtain an iron-clad dispensation from pope Julius II to allow the marriage, although for reasons that remain mysterious (some suggest that the widowed Henry VII thought of marrying Catherine himself) the marriage was repeatedly deferred between 1503 and 1509, and only took place three months after Henry VIII became king in April 1509, and that at Henry’s own initiative and insistence.

The kind of dispensation required for the future Henry VIII to marry the widowed Catherine depended on whether the marriage between Catherine and Arthur had been consummated. If it had, then what was required was the major dispensation from “affinity,” the relationship of brother-in-law and sister-in-law that that sexual consummation had created; but if it had not been, then all that was required was the minor dispensation from “public honesty,” that is, from the appearance of impropriety in marrying a reputed sister-in-law, although, absent sexual intercourse between Catherine and Arthur, it would have been merely appearance rather than, in Canon Law, reality. Catherine always insisted that her marriage with the tubercular Arthur had not been consummated, while Henry, although finding and producing old servants of the late Prince Arthur who were willing to testify to having heard Arthur say on the morrow of his marriage “Gentlemen, this night I have been in Spain” refused to give testimony under oath about whether he had “experienced” Catherine to have been a virgin after their marriage.

This is relevant because the dispensation that Henry VII and Ferdinand had procured from the papacy in 1503 had been the major one, from “affinity.” Cardinal Wolsey, once he had realized that Henry really wanted out of his marriage to Catherine and that he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, and, consequently, that he would be out of a job if the annulment didn’t come through, decided right away that the only way to get the annulment was to argue that when Catherine and Henry had been married in 1509 she had been a virgin, and that, consequently, the “wrong dispensation” had been sought and obtained in 1503; but Henry refused to allow him to make this argument. Scarisbrick thinks that if Henry had deferred to Wolsey he might have got his annulment, but Kenny, a Benedictine monk and a Canon Lawyer (aka, Dom Ansgar Kelly) points out that by 1500 the doctrine had almost universally triumphed among canonists that “the greater dispensation automatically trumps the lesser.” That is to say, by seeking a greater dispensation (from “affinity” — which would have been unnecessary and irrelevant had the marriage of Catherine and Arthur not been consummated), the lesser matter of “public honesty” had been covered automatically (whereas if they had sought and obtained a dispensation from the impediment of “public honesty” only, and it later came out that Catherine and Arthur had consummated the marriage, the marriage would be null and void, and the papal dispensation inefficacious because irrelevant).

Henry had come up, whether cynically or ingenuously makes no difference, with the argument that God Himself had condemned all marriages of a man to his deceased brother’s widow, and the pope would simply have to recognize the truth of Henry’s realization (Henry had to engage in a lot of fancy, if inept, footwork, to evade the final bit of Leviticus 20:21 “… they shall be childless” whereas he and Catherine had had a daughter, Mary: he tried, with conspicuous lack of success to hire Hebraists and even rabbis to testify that “childless” meant “sonless,” and so Mary didn’t count). That this was Henry’s own darling notion seems to be supported by the facts that at the same time as he was trying to force it on Clement VII he (a) was writing long moralistic letters to his older sister Margaret, the Dowager Queen of Scotland, against her attempt to get her second marriage, to Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus, annulled so that she could marry Henry Stewart, Lord Methven (she got the annulment in 1527, to her brother’s disgust) and (b) seeking and obtaining a dispensation from Clement VII to marry, if he should ever be free to marry again, any woman with whose sister he had had sexual relations (Mary Boleyn, Anne’s sister, had been Henry’s mistress from about 1523 to 1526). Henry saw, evidently, no correlation between (as he saw it) God’s express prohibition of any marriage between a man and his brother’s widow, and the canon law prohibition of marriage to anyone with whose close kinsfolk one had had a sexual relationship.

And what of Clement? From 1528 onwards he was largely under the thumb of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew, and in no position to give Henry an annulment, even had he wanted to do so. But (according to Clement’s latest, Italian, biographer, Clement had studied the documentation himself, and by 1528 or 1529 had come to the conclusion that (a) Henry’s case was without canonical merit, and (b) that Henry’s argument about the force of Leviticus as “Divine Law” was an attack on the papal authority to grant dispensations in such cases that was an attack on the papacy itself. He resolved, consequently, to delay a resolution as long as possible, in the hope that Catherine might die, and so leave Henry free to marry, or that Henry might lose interest in Anne Boleyn, or that Henry himself might die, and he even sought advice whether, if Catherine might be persuaded to become a nun, with Henry’s consent, Henry might be allowed to remarry, even if polygamously. In 1530 he had word conveyed to Henry privately that if the case were to come to a quick resolution in Rome, the result would be that Henry’s case would be rejected and he would be ordered to dismiss Anne from Court and to return to Catherine. Thereafter, Henry’s representatives in Rome swung around to seeking delay after delay in the resolution of the case, until Henry could come up with some way of effecting his will without the cooperation or assent of the pope. It was only the rise to influence of Thomas Cromwell among Henry’s counsellors from 1531 onwards, and his convincing Henry that every king was the “Head” of the Church in his own dominions, and that all papal authority was usurped from kings, and then Henry and Cromwell together found a ready instrument for their schemes late in 1532 in Thomas Cranmer, that the way fporward became clear to them.

Thank you Mr. Tighe. I was hoping you would show up as you can bat this out of the park unlike anyone else.

Dr. Tighe. I stand corrected, and I appreciate the information you provided. I know that Reformation era history is a very complex thing and should have known better than to display my ignorance.

Mrs. Lawrence, I have never denied the fact that Rome did reform itself. It is unfortunate that the internal reformation came too late to prevent the breaking away of several European areas. Unfortunately, pride and politics played a large part in all this. We are still a fallen race, after all.

TU..AD,
I am not sure that Sarah Hey would know a Gnostic from a Gnome. She has the Politics Bug. Politics becomes more important in Christian bodies when those in authority begin to become apostate. When the bishops in the Episcopal Church failed to uphold their consecration vow to “drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word,” then the way became open for the political manipulators to have their way. At that point the battle was already lost. The laity, unfortunately, were kept in the dark about all this until it became too late. Otherwise, they may have elected different bishops. Instead, bishop’s elections became beauty contests and not an endeavor to select a godly shepherd.

So the Episcopal Goose was cooked from that point on. If the theology is wrong or lacking, then all the well-intentioned politics in the world will not save a denomination from Apostasy. This is what has happened to the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, I believe the Anglican Communion Office is so filled with people with a political rather than a theological agenda that the Anglican Communion will not be able to maintain orthodoxy much longer. Indeed it seems unable or unwilling to enforce it now.

TU..AD –
Forgot to add that I really could not care less about Sarah’s view of my spiritual state. She enjoys politics. I view politics as a necessary evil to govern large bodies of people. However, if those people are truly Christian and truly guided by the Holy Spirit, then the necessity for a lot of political maneuvering to get the proper things done is rather obviated, wouldn’t you say?

Allen Lewis: This is why I have almost no sympathy for the theory that “This is all the conservatives’ fault, because we wouldn’t get our hands dirty with politics.” Conservatives are RIGHT when they regard politics as “a necessary evil to govern large bodies of people”. We don’t use “politics” to run our families because we have a better way – mutual love and concern for each other. A parish becomes a bigger sort of “family”, and because it’s bigger and not as well-ordered as a family, a small degree of politics becomes necessary to run things. When you start getting into even bigger and more elaborate organizations, they become so unlike what we think Christian life should be like, conservatives barely regard them as Christian at all, and so they are less and less inclined to involve themselves. It’s not what we signed up for when we decided to follow Christ. The fact that so much politics is required to “run” a church seems to me a warning sign about how little of God it has. Insisting that Christians HAVE to immerse themselves in sterile power-mongering if they want to have a church is tantamount to informing them that they’re already on their own. But I suppose it provides some comfort to people to think that they really have (or might have had) the power to reverse the disaster that’s sinking their former church. Just as person who loses a loved one in an auto accident might become obsessed with studying the traffic patterns and lights of the fatal intersection, and devise elaborate plans for how the disaster could have been avoided, if only they’d left the house 2 minutes earlier, or driven 3 miles faster.

“When you start getting into even bigger and more elaborate organizations, they become so unlike what we think Christian life should be like, conservatives barely regard them as Christian at all, and so they are less and less inclined to involve themselves.”

This is both purely Protestant in its implicit ecclesiology, and displays an astonishing ignorance of, or insoucisance towards, the Early Church — as for example the struggle over Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy in the 4th/5th centuries (or as regards any of the great, say seven, ecumenical councils. Such heroes of orthodoxy as Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great (and many more), as well as their heterodox counterparts (Arius, Eusebius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Dioscoros) has to develop as many political skills as theological ones, if not more. The Church has always been political — and those American “Christians” who think otherwise seem to have more in common with the ancient Gnostics and their distaste for the dirt and messiness of the world, than with the Fathers and orthodox Christians of yore. I take this as yet another indication of the fundamental accuracy of Harold Bloom’s characterization of almost all strains of American Christianity, conservative as much as liberal, as more akin to the ancient Gnostics in their “spiritual searches” than to historic orthodox Christianity (cf. *The American Religion* by Harold Bloom [1991]).

Mr. Lewis -

FWIW, and I am parroting my Church History prof here, the protestant reformation was going to happen with or without the Catholic abuses. The rising nationalism in northern Europe and the incursion of nominalism as a philosophical underpinning to individualism set the stage. It’s arguable (and the Orthodox do argue it) that the break of East and West deprived the western Church of a certain balance which might have seen the Church through the whole episode. Again, FWIW.

Also, I might say that I have a more benign view of “politics”, I think, which I tend to regard as nothing different than a group of people making a decision. That may be as few as two or three, or as many as the whole world. Obviously, the methodologies change depending on the setting, but whether it’s a family deciding on a vacation, a parish holding the annual meeting, the diocese in synod, or the election of an American president, charity ought to rule as various person express themselves, listen to one another, engage in whatever method for decision-making we use, then accept the results – and one another – in love. Of course, the larger the setting, the less personal, and the easier it is to slip into dirty politics – lies, gossip, manipulation, factionalism/party spirit.

Possibly because of our own history and polity, Americans tend to look at politics as the heart of every matter. The question of Henry’s annulment is a good example. I was raised on the same understanding expressed by a couple of folks here: if it hadn’t been for Spanish/Roman politics, the annulment would have been granted. Heck, I even made a semi-joke about it in my own comment. As I grow older, and read more (a fair bit under Dr. Tighe’s influence, btw), I become more suspicious that I have been reading my American proclivities into history (horrors! NO! not ME!) rather than seeking all of the facts. As has been stated here several times, the See of Peter does not protect the occupant from personal or prudential error, so the pope could have withheld a rightful annulment due to dirty politics. However, I have come to the point where I am suspicious of myself when I look at a situation and analyze it in those terms.

As I said, FWIW.

Well, I’m sorry to betray such a protestant attitude, since I converted to Catholicism several years ago. And I would hope that my Canadian nationality would leave me immune from any temptation to following the American Religion. In any case, what did the LAITY have to do with the resolution of any of those disputes in the times of the early fathers? Nothing. It was all discussed and fought over by clergy, and the sheep followed along with little understanding and even less control over what was happening. Sarah Hey’s political ambitions are for mobilizing the laity to regain control over TEC via lobbying, running for office, voting, etc. – all the things that distinguish American secular life but that an average conservative Christian would find repugnant in their church.

Dr. Mabuse -

It is my sincere hope that being Canadian exempts you from all sorts of things American (U.S. -ian, I mean, since you are also “American” in the true sense). I have always thought being Canadian must be rather like living next door to the Simpsons; it’s so embarrassing!

Be that as it may, I can assure you that after 21+ years a Catholic, I continue to be challenged in all sorts of ways with protestant thinking. That’s not necessarily bad: the protestant reformation really did challenge the Catholic Church to clean up abuses, and better define her theology, and us converts bring a unique challenge to the the cradle Church as well.

Just as protestantism gone bad tends toward gnosticism and/or spirtualism, Catholicism gone bad tends toward legalism and/or ritualism. We who hold a Catholic theology and a protestant psyche have a gift and a duty. The gift is our enthusiam and fresh viewpoint. The duty is to be re-formed; Protestants, and all Christians, have the same duty, of course, to allow the Holy Spirit to conform us the Christ. As protestants become Catholic, that takes the shape of confronting the gnosticism that may lurk yet in our world-views and habits of thought.

SF’s reporting is extensive, but and some of the criticism insightful, but their recommendations make me very glad that I am where I have always been.

Allen Lewis: “However, if those people are truly Christian and truly guided by the Holy Spirit, then the necessity for a lot of political maneuvering to get the proper things done is rather obviated, wouldn’t you say?”

Allen, I’d say the best Scriptural example which encapsulates what you’re saying is the Jerusalem Council.

Jesus said something about being innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Seems like that might be of applicable use on occasion for the wide-eyed Christian. The Book of Esther used guile to turn things around.

With regards to Sarah Hey, she’s rather incoherent. She stipulates that TEc is irreformable, and yet she also says that conservative Episcopalians should be more involved in church politics. I don’t quite understand that.

Another thing. Is Sarah’s diocese, the diocese of Upper South Carolina, considered “orthodox” and “conservative”? And didn’t she proclaim that her bishop Dorsey Henderson was and is “orthodox”? And yet, YET!, didn’t +Henderson sign one of those deposition documents for archflamingo KJS to defrock a conservative bishop in TEc? What’s up with that?

What a crock of crap.

I’m disappointed but not surprised at Chuck Alley’s comments. I recently read that his parish, St. Matthew’s in Richmond, VA, withdrew from AAC and ACN. I really wish Alley had taken the more realistic view that TEC, at this point, appears beyond reformation. I wonder if we’ll see a church plant by AMiA or CANA in response to St. Matthew’s decision.

I find it interesting that John Kurcina, who once served as a lay assistant at St. Matthew’s while considering ordination in TEC, eventually withdrew from the process and left St. Matthew’s. He was recently ordained as a CANA priest and now serves as an assistant at The Falls Church.

Is Sarah’s diocese, the diocese of Upper South Carolina, considered “orthodox” and “conservative”? And didn’t she proclaim that her bishop Dorsey Henderson was and is “orthodox”? And yet, YET!, didn’t +Henderson sign one of those deposition documents for archflamingo KJS to defrock a conservative bishop in TEc? What’s up with that?

TU..AD-
I hardly consider the Diocese of Upper South Carolina as orthodox. It has too many large population areas with its concomitant collection of gays and lesbians. +Dorsey voted against affirming Gene Robinson at GC2003, but then forbade any of his parishes to have anything to do with the ACN or ACC groups. He has never been as toxic as +Chane or +Bruno, but he seems to be OK with the new, improved TEC. He is also the Chair of the Title IV Committee and was complicit in deposing +Schofield and +Duncan.

Sarah worships at Christ Church, Greenville (last I heard) and that parish has basically isolated itself within the diocese. I understand (I have no facts) that it does not pay its assessment to the diocese, but it has so many members that it is somewhat protected by that and political influence. The parish refuses to join ACN or ACC or any of the orthodox groups, but it also refuses to join up with any of the revisionist groups. So basically it just says, “We’re OK. The rest of you can go hang!.” What great Christian Spirit is that? For Sarah to claim that +Dorsey is orthodox is laughable. Maybe he won’t ordain an active homosexual as a priest in the diocese, but he will do little else to fight the rot within TEC. He also was complicit in the trampling of the Canons in the depositions of +Schofield, +Cox, and +Duncan. So I would not consider him in the orthodox camp. He is even rather neutral on the proposed Anglican Covenant.

There’s a very nasty phrase from the RAF for the attitude you describe.

The second clause assures the “Jack” addressed in the first clause that one is alright, oneself.

Look not to Upper South Carolina, but to the Diocese of Fond du Lac, where +Henderson was Dean before becoming a bishop. Fond du Lac was once the cream of the cream of Anglo-Catholic dioceses in (P)ECUSA, but even from the beginning of the WO strife in the 70s, its witness was strangely muted, by comparison with other Anglo-Catholic dioceses, both those that were eventually lost to revisionists (e.g., Albany, Eau Claire, Milwaukee, Northern Indiana, Springfield, SE Florida, SW Florida, Western Kansas; I count them all as revisionist, even though all but the bishops of the two Florida dioceses are reckoned by the undiscerning as “conservative,” because they all practice WO) and those that have borne witness to the end (Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin). This was in all likelihood because successive bishops of Fond du Lac (Brady 1958-1980 and Stevens 1980-1994) had “weaknesses” that left them reluctant to stick their necks too far out, if at all, lest these “weaknesses” be exposed. The result was that in 1994 a genial Anglo-Catholic who had formerly been opposed to WO, but had recently “seen the light” on the issue, Russell Jacobus, was elected bishop there; and so good-bye to Anglo-Catholic orthodoxy on WO. Perhaps other clergy of the diocese also had/have “weaknesses” that might serve both to attenuate whatever orthodox sentiments they might once have entertained and also to leave them susceptible to pressure to toe the corporate line.

IV, you forgot to include “Chicago” and “Long Island” among the “lost dioceses.”

Allen Lewis: “The parish refuses to join ACN or ACC or any of the orthodox groups, but it also refuses to join up with any of the revisionist groups. So basically it just says, “We’re OK. The rest of you can go hang!.” What great Christian Spirit is that?”

That is selfish and lame. Pathetic, really. It just illustrates the babbling incoherence of Sarah Hey. She talks a great story about reforming a diocese, but her own parish essentially tells everyone else to “go hang”. She calls that a reform effort?

“For Sarah to claim that +Dorsey is orthodox is laughable.”

Of late, more and more of Sarah’s claims are becoming laughable.

FWIW, I’ve read RobRoy say that he believed +Dorsey was orthodox simply on the basis that Sarah Hey said he was orthodox. And by golly, if Sarah Hey said something, then RobRoy was going to believe it. I hope he’s learned his lesson.

“He also was complicit in the trampling of the Canons in the depositions of +Schofield, +Cox, and +Duncan.”

COMPLICIT!!?!

Judas was complicit too.

Perhaps it’s just me but this has become a most amusing comment thread.