yep.

Indeed.

This is why the Continuum has no desire to be connected to Canterbury. We gave up on that a long time ago. And we are doing quite well without the Archbishop of Canterbury, thank you very much!

This is why I find the ACNA a non-starter. They are still pining for recognition” from the ArchFraud. Why bother; what is the point?

Anglicanism, IMHO, has never really evolved beyond its limitations as a state church. For an established church, theological flexibility is essential — how else to keep everybody in? It became SOP for ambitious clerics to affirm the 39 Articles without actually agreeing with them or thinking much about their implications.

The Anglican Communion has never really developed a grown up theology. So now poor Rowan Cantuar is left to make bricks without clay.

The quote from the ‘wag at National Review” is actually frpm Auberon Waugh:

“In England, we have a curious institution called the Church of England. Its strength has always lain in the fact that on any moral or political issue it can produce such a wide divergence of opinion that nobody – from the Pope to Mao Tse-tung – can say with any confidence that he is not an Anglican. Its weaknesses are that nobody pays much attention to it, and very few people attend its functions.”

“Theological fraud”.

I like that. Sadly, it’s all too true.

Mr. Johnson, your clarity is a gift from the Holy Spirit.

That’s one way of looking at it, Margeret. But I tend to look at it from the other direction. To develop a plausible theology, you need a plausible church discipline. And Magisteriums are like guns; they’re only effective if people know that you’re able and willing to use them.

Maybe this doesn’t happen as fast as Catholics would like it to but what eventually happens to guys like Charles Curran or Matthew Fox? They’re essentially told to either bring what they teach in line with Catholic teaching or hit the road. But Chris! Rowan Williams doesn’t have a weapon like that!

He does so. It’s called invitations to the Lambeth Conference. If he really believed the conclusions he came to in his recent letter, he would have written Mrs. Schori in 2008 and told her that these were the conclusions that 2,000 years of Church teaching as well as the Anglican Communion had come to in these matters and that therefore Gene Robinson, any Episcopal bishop who voted to confirm him or any Anglican bishop who permits same-sex marriages in his diocese would not be attending the 2008 the Lambeth Conference.

If Dr. Williams truly believed what he recently wrote, Bob Duncan would have become the Anglican Primate of the United States last year. But His Grace didn’t then and I don’t think he truly does now. He issued blanket invitations to all American bishops excluding Robinson whom he let hang around. Bottom line? This may be what the Church teaches but it’s not that big a deal to Rowan Williams whether you believe it or not. In conditions like those, Church teaching doesn’t stand a chance.

Heresy is malignant. A two-track system will pretend it isn’t, leading to either the eventual demise of the whole organization, or, possibly, the eventual exclusion of the cancerous elements.

The ABCD’s (Archbishop of Canterbury-Druid) concept of holding both ACNA & TE”c” in communion is as futile as an attempt to get the Greek Orthodox and the Unitarian Universalists into communion with one another.

All the king’s horses & all the king’s men….

I’m getting rather leary about an organization in which the only anticipation of discipline is whether one might not receive an invitation to a tea party with a powerless Queen that only happens once every ten years, that has a theology so agreeable that everyone is included without qualification, in which every sort of truth can be held simultaneously in one’s mind as long as it’s done ‘in tension’ (guess that means quiet desperation, like holding in flatus)and the only other constraint seems to be against diminishing anyone’s dignity because of a Baptismal Covenant.

“If he really believed the conclusions …”

Of course, he could have let the Primates meet, as scheduled, and simply have followed their recommendations re invitations.

I think he is a much stronger leader than most realize. He is leading the AC to relativism, keeping TEC from being kicked out, and keeping the Global South from walking away, better than anyone else could.

As I mentioned somewhere yesterday, +Rowan (like +Howe), regardless of verbiage, exhibits the core value of schism being worse than heresy.

Christopher Johnson: “If the Archbishop of Canterbury won’t accept this most basic of facts, then His Grace as well as those Anglican “conservatives” who insist on the importance of an organic relationship with him and his see must be abandoned.

Grow up.”

Well then. Let’s take this statement to it’s logical conclusion. That would mean abandoning the two variants of Institutionalist-Enablers of soul-destroying heresy and apostasy: The ACI/Communion Partner types championed by Seitz/Radner and the make-it-up-as-we-along Third Wayers championed by Sarah Hey.

Further, that would also mean possibly abandoning ACNA as there are many in ACNA who seek official communion recognition by the See of Canterbury, eg., Fr. Handy.

Then, until it makes it official, that would also mean abandoning GAFCON since it still maintains ties to the See of Canterbury.

So unless one wishes to swim the Tiber, or go to Constantinopole or Geneva, then the only Anglican form left as an option would be the Continuing Churches.

“If he really believed the conclusions he came to in his recent letter, he would have written Mrs. Schori in 2008 and told her that these were the conclusions that 2,000 years of Church teaching as well as the Anglican Communion had come to in these matters and that therefore Gene Robinson, any Episcopal bishop who voted to confirm him or any Anglican bishop who permits same-sex marriages in his diocese would not be attending the 2008 the Lambeth Conference.”

Mr. Johnson, you’re right. More than that, if Rowan really believed the conclusions he came to, then he would repent of his own actions in his own province. Rown is a voting member of Parliament. In 2005(?) Parliament allowed same sex civil partnerships. Did Rowan stand up and give a speech clearly teaching why this is wrong according to Christian teachings? No. Instead he and his bishops issued a statement that clergy and parishioners could legally enter same sex but s*xless civil partnerships and declared that they would not authorise any blessing service.

We have read accounts of subsequent blessings being performed by rogue priests with little or no punishment. Hasn’t there also been a full-fledged marriage as well? I do recall the photos of the two men (one a priest) in a horse-drawn carriage. What did Rowan do then?

Mr. Johnson, a call or email to the Catholic writer, George Weigel, may provide an interesting interview for your readers. In March of 2007, Weigel wrote this regarding Williams:

“Shortly after Rowan Williams was named to Becket’s chair, we spent a cordial ninety minutes together at Lambeth Palace, Canterbury’s London headquarters. I gave him a copy of Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II; we spoke of John Paul’s theology of the body, and then fell to discussing the difference between “sacramental” and “gnostic” understandings of the human condition. The former insists that the stuff of the world – including maleness, femaleness, and their complementarity — has truths built into it; gnostics say it’s all plastic, all malleable, all changeable. The sacramentalists believe that the extraordinary reveals itself through the ordinary: bread, wine, water, salt, marital love and fidelity; the gnostics say it’s a matter of superior wisdom, available to the enlightened (which can mean, the politically correct). Dr. Williams seemed convinced that the gnosticism of a lot of western high culture posed a great danger to historic Christianity and the truths it must proclaim.

“He was right. The gnosticism that infects the Episcopal Church USA has just about driven the Anglican Communion over the cliff.”

———-

Did Rowan mention gnosticism in his reflection?

An Honorious for our times,(early century Pope who was declared a heretic not for any heresy of his own but for not condemning one).

Sarah Hey: “Either way, the Global South could opt out of the utterly pointless and trivial “Instruments of Communion” and cease helping prop up the facade of those bodies.”

Hilariously ironic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sarah Hey should simply look in the mirror and apply the same criticism she dishes out to the Global South and give it to herself. Transposing:

Institutionalist-Enablers could opt out of the utterly pointless and trivial TEc and cease helping prop up the facade of TEc.

Hypocrite. Get the log out of your eye, Sarah Hey, before criticizing the Global South.

“Did Rowan stand up and give a speech clearly teaching why this is wrong according to Christian teachings? ”

Unfortunately, he is no William Wilberforce.

Actually, the beer analogy is more apt than you may think… I mean, have you ever TASTED light beer?

Nasty, insipid and without body. Much like an “Anglican light” church would be.

Give me real beer any time, with all its flavor and robustness. Well worth a few extra calories.

Typo in my earlier (2am or so) post. Leary is a combination of leery and wary…and really I’m both.

Thank you Christopher Johnson and also Mrs. Lawrence, and all the great commentors here.

There is no place like MCJ to find clarity, commonsense and authentic Christian orthodoxy.

Coming here you can always find a good dose of antidotes to the multiple toxins and adulterants that are blinding and killing Anglicans.

It was right about this time of year eleven years ago that I concluded staying in TEO would be a substantial hinderance to my attempts to draw closer to Jesus. At the time I was a very active member of a small TEO congregation. I was on the vestry, in the choir and led a Bible study group.

One summer Sunday the rector and his family were on vacation. We were greeted on arrival by a sixtyish fellow who insisted that everyone call him “Dick”. Some of the folks knew him, but most didn’t. The service was odd from the start due to Dick’s commentary added at every turn, but at homily time it got really weird. Dick de-vested to show that he was in leotard and tights. He announced that we’d have a liturgical dance as our “instructional focus”. I debated walking out, but didn’t want to leave the other singers in the lurch come time for the anthem (institutionalism writ small, at least from this remove). Dick had plenty of “look at me” moments in his dance. At the end of the sacrilegious and disgusting display, a disappointingly large number of folks applauded.

When I got home, I did some serious websearching – as much as one could in 1998 (Lycos, AltaVista, WorldWideWebWorm, IIRC). I found out more than I ever wanted to know about Louie Crew, John Spong and their comrades. It became abundantly clear that a well-organized, well-funded and highly motivated group of folks in TEO were determined to make all of TEO into a cruel parody of Christianity. I drafted a letter of resignation from the vestry and the congregation and started a difficult period of searching that lasted for about a year and a half. Never have regretted leaving TEO, but I have regretted staying as long as I did.

Gregg the Obscure, where did you end up?

I was received into the Roman Catholic Church.

This is a timely read:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100004972/send-for-the-men-in-white-coats-a-c-of-e-cathedral-offers-a-choice-of-wafers-consecrated-by-a-man-or-a-woman/

I would support a form of “two-track” Anglicanism if it placed the heretics in a subordinate fellowship position without power to derail the work of the church. I would support it in recognition that many of the members of TEC and ACoC are real believers, often lacking good leadership but struggling along as best they can. The joint membership of TEC, OCoC and ACNA in the Global Communion would provide an opportunity for dioceses, parishes, and individuals to jump ship safely.

To change metaphors: when you replace an old rotting power pole, you insert the new one right next to the old one, strap the two together, and gradually (over a period of weeks) shift each power, phone, internet, cable TV etc wire from the old to the new. Only when all the wires have been shifted do you chop down the old pole.

But I think TEC and ACoC would refuse to accept such a second-rate position in the communion, and they would leave. Which is an acceptable alternative.

Unfortunately offering them such a position would be considered “not nice” so I can’t imaging Anglican leaders doing it.

The Anglican Curmudgeon has reposted and updated his prediction from a year ago…he brings up the thoughts of Fr. Al Kimel (former Episcopal priest) who compares Anglicanism to Camelot:

“Catholic Anglicans, more so, I think, than our fellow Anglican brothers and sisters, have lived on a dream of what Anglicanism might be, a dream of what Anglicanism, by the grace of God, should be, would be, will be.”

http://pontifications.wordpress.com/anglicanism/

So is Anglicanism a dream, a fraud, a pollution or a refinement of Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Oh Gregg, how did you keep a straight face? I know it was tragic more than comical, but I think I would have been torn between laughing and crying. My kids would have been in stitches.

My husband and I once attended a service in the chapel of Middlebury College…I think it was UCC, maybe, or perhaps just generic liberal Protestantist. The “liturgy,” composed by the chaplain, included stuff like: “I want to look at all the dragons in my head.” (Mercifully, that’s the only line I can remember, but the others were like unto it.)

We were amazed that the Middlebury College kids dutifully recited this slop — how could they keep their countenance in the face of such fatuous grownup idiocy? I whispered to my hubby, “I am not going to say this stuff!” We both spent the rest of the service trying really hard not to laugh. (We were near the front and didn’t want to be conspicuous.) But it was a strain!

Whitestone, that is a great link. May I respectfully point out to my dear Father Kimel, though, that reams of white type on a black background are really hard to read? I beg the good Father to have pity on my poor old bi-focaled eyes!

Mrs. Lawrence’s link provides incredible reading. Some of the comments are worthwhile as well. One sample:

surely doctrinal stances are more important than mere physical attributes ? what about wafers from those who believe in the resurrection and those who don’t – donatist wafers ? pelagian wafers ? wafers from those who are pro-choice or pro-life ?

I KNOW !!!!
What about colour-coding ???!!!
pink, blue, green, rainbow, black…
and if they run out of colours ?
how about different shapes ?
e.g. a gay consecrator who believes in the Trinity or a chinese consecrator who believes there was a star of bethlehem ? pink triangle or yellow star ?
er…no…scrub that idea….
Er – what about little symbols stamped on each wafer ?
like the smiley-faced tabs you get at raves ?

Yeah, but Christopher, when Gene was not invited to Lambeth, he still turned up and hung around and complained to the press anyways.

Rowan leaving him in the vicinty and ignoring him was about as much as he could do – if he’d had him tossed out by security, can you imagine the publicity on the news? Gene would have milked it for every drop of martyrdom he could get – and we’d probably be reading about death threats and bulletproof vests and a guy driving a Ford Cortina stopped on the M2 who had an Uzi in the boot (hey, any more news on the alleged arrest of the alleged potential assassin that Gene mentioned in his last talk?)

That would have been Gene’s bodyguard, if he followed the Ted Kennedy school of weapons regulation.

The Middelbury College liturgy sounds awful, but there is no such word as “Protestantist”.; It’s “Protestant”. As one of the few Protestants on here, I appreciate if the correct word could be used. :^)

Thanks

How ’bout Protestantisticismishness?

The guy what runs this site is probably going to end up somewhere in the Geneva vicinity so choose your terms carefully.

Sorry just joking – I’m not being derogatory.

After all the arguments from Pontificator to Al Mohler to Matt Kennedy, etc., I’m still equal parts catholic, evangelical, charismatic, protestant and orthodox.

My hope and prayer is for the reunion of all Christ’s Body – those who believe in Father, Son, Holy Spirit, in His Name, Cross, Blood, Resurrection, Gospel, Way, Truth and Life.