God is not finished with the Episcopal Church yet.

No argument there.

“What, are you requiring new Episcopalians to come to church disguised as empty pews?”

LMAO! This is so full of Epic WIN, I can’t see straight anymore.

I myself am struggling against the Patriarchy at this very moment. The resistance never ceases. Why I hardly have time to for a life of my own as I join my victimized and oppressed sisters in our joint endeavor to end the Patriarchy and throw off its chains.

Why the other day I was driving my Patriarchal car on a Patriarchal road while the radio station, in full collusion with the powers of the Patriarchy, played a Patriarchal song full of misogyny and other bad stuff like killing kitties. It just ain’t right. How long is this bigotry gonna keep on? The man be keeping us woman down. WAAAAAAHHHHHH !!!!

I think that we need a Galileo corrolary to Godwin’s Law.

(If he had only stuck to astronomy and left theology and papal court politics alone, he might never have been sent to that Italian country villa. Hmm … getting ideas here …)

– An oppressed Catholic

I think integrity left out the word “waistlines” in their statement about growing.

You know, someone has to eat all those extra donuts bought for the multitudes coming in…

It proves once again how much the nutcases actually **need** traditional believers. It’s no fun at all being abnormal if you are the only one in the room. There MUST be normal people or there’s no point. If you can’t shock or insult or scandalize someone the wind goes right out of the sails. Very sad, but very true.

“God is not finished with the Episcopal Church yet.

No argument there.”

Much of TEC is finished with God, though.

Chris M
You are so right. That is certainly his best line this year and maybe even ever.
Gotta remember to use it if the occasion arises. With proper credit, of course.

I don’t care what side of history I end up on, if I get on the right side of eternity.

These folks are so good at shoveling horsepucky. I have a barn that needs cleaning.

A proposal to Ms. Russell:

We’ll take all the Anglicans who want real Christianity, and gladly. In exchange, you Episcopalians are more than welcome to take all of our Stuck-in-the-70′s dissenters…Sr. Joan Chittister and all the other pantsuit-wearing sisters? They’re yours! Dick McBrien? Take him, please! But don’t count on them staying for long, as they and their cohorts are not only stuck in the 60′s and 70′s – they are in their 60′s and 70′s…

As far as I can tell, “bigotry” is now defined as “not affirming the inherent divinity of any and all consensual sexual activity.”

But maybe I’m just cranky because I got blasted as homophobic a couple of days ago for citing CCC 2358 and pointing out that calling the desires disordered does not equate to calling the person disordered (or an abomination or less of an image of God), since we are more than our desires.

“Growing the church? Growing the church?!! How do you figure? According to TEO’s 2008 numbers, two-thirds of TEO outlets have an ASA of less than 100. What, are you requiring new Episcopalians to come to church disguised as empty pews?”

Brilliant! Thanks for cheering me up once again! Although …….. maybe we now have something to be cheerful about!

Very predictable. They can’t allow the possibility of genuine theological disagreement. They never have with any of the conservative Anglicans, so why should they give the Pope a break? Everything, everything, is seen through the lens of sex and “oppression.”

bob’s got a good point above. What are they going to do when they’re rid of the last of us? They need to hate somebody.

Let’s see. People who probably attend near-lily-white parishes comprising Educated Elites Just Like Themselves are labeling as “bigoted” the Catholic Church, undoubtedly the most ethnically and racially diverse church on the planet.

Whatever.

“straight cis men”

I see the transgender movement is making inroads. (“Cis” is shorthand for “cisgendered” or people born with the ‘right’ gender.)

Not much of an inroad; I thought the “cis” was a typo.

The poor dears. The “Right” gender is the one you were born with, whether you like it or not. They don’t have an argument with me, but with God. So they go to church where they won’t hear about him. And they’ll get mad if you leave. All very mature.

Homosexual attraction is a symptom, a conditioned behavior, a disorientation, a mis-direction of desires, mistaken identity.

Usually, same-sex attraction is a sign of a sensitive (or sensitized) personality, development (attachment and identity) disruptions, childhood trauma, family dynamics, parental modeling, parental dysfunction, molestation and the mis-beliefs that result from these experiences and events.

Just because a person has these feelings doesn’t mean they are healthy or will lead to a good outcome if they are gratified by acting on them.

In fact, statistics and research show these feelings and behaviors lead to dire and dangerous behaviors and negative outcomes.

Having certain feelings and desires does not give anyone a separate status or identity in God’s eyes, in fact, Scripture does not recognize any exemption or exclusion on the basis of desires or self-perception. See: I Corinthian 6:9-20, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 2

God is perfectly inclusive and levels the playing field…no one is exalted over another on the basis of money, social status, education or special-ness.

Each and every soul on the planet is absolutely unique and never to be repeated, hand-made by God, a sacred gift to the world, made in His image.

We are all in the same boat, disoriented, mis-directed, with mistaken identities until we begin the journey beginning with – HUMILITY and HONESTY, the recognition that I really am a sinner and have done myself and others real HARM, that I can’t help myself, fix or change what I have done and who I am and I need HELP.

God, then, mercifully and graciously grants me the revelation of faith to believe that JESUS IS LORD and HE is the Savior I need, who died to pay for my sins and give me power to overcome them, day by day, step by step along with the rest of His Church.

Sorry, Susan, Louie, Gene, Bruce, and all your colleagues in agenda, you do not have a case in God’s courtroom.

You are not a special case in His Church.

Some parts of the Church have done you wrong by rejecting and fearing you and other parts by accepting your sin as good and giving in to your tactics and tantrums.

All sin is sin. Sin causes pain and comes from pain and leads to more pain and separation from God.

Jesus is the Way back to God, by way of the Cross, the Truth to guide us and the Love to keep putting up with us and to help us put up with each other.

Jesus said, ‘You are my disciples if you:
- take up your Cross and follow me (Galatians 5:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27)
- keep my Word. (John 14:15-16)
- love one another. (John 15:12)
- bear much fruit. (Genesis 1:28, John 15:8)

Homosexual attraction is a symptom, a conditioned behavior, a disorientation, a mis-direction of desires, mistaken identity. Usually, it is a sign of childhood trauma, family dynamics, parental modeling, parental dysfunction, molestation and the mis-beliefs that result from these experiences and events.

Just because a person has these feelings doesn’t mean they are healthy or will lead to a good outcome if they are gratified by acting on them. In fact, statistics and research show these feelings and behaviors lead to dire and dangerous behaviors and negative outcomes.
Having certain feelings and desires does not give anyone a separate status or identity in God’s eyes, in fact, Scripture does not recognize any exemption or exclusion on the basis of desires or self-perception. See: I Corinthian 6:9-20, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 2

God is perfectly inclusive and levels the playing field…no one is exalted over another on the basis of money, social status, education or special-ness.

Each and every soul on the planet is absolutely unique and never to be repeated, hand-made by God, a sacred gift to the world, made in His image.

We are all in the same boat, disoriented, mis-directed, with mistaken identities until we begin the journey beginning with – abject HUMILITY – and HONESTY, the recognition that I am a sinner, that I can’t fix or change that and that I need HELP and the revelation that Jesus is Lord and Savior who died to pay for my sins and give me power to overcome them, day by day, step by step along with the rest of His Church.

Sorry, Susan, Louie, Gene, Bruce, but you do not have a case in God’s courtroom.

You are not a special case.

All sin is sin. Sin causes pain and comes from pain and leads to more pain and separation from God.

Jesus is the Way back to God, by way of the Cross, the Truth to guide us and the Love to keep putting up with us and to help us put up with each other.

Jesus said, ‘You are my disciples if you:
- take up your Cross and follow me (Galatians 5:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27)
- keep my Word. (John 14:15-16)
- love one another. (John 15:12)
- bear much fruit. (Genesis 1:28, John 15:8)

Homosexual attraction is a symptom, a conditioned behavior, a disorientation, a mis-direction of desires, mistaken identity. Usually, it is a sign of childhood trauma, family dynamics, parental modeling, parental dysfunction, molestation and the mis-beliefs that result from these experiences and events.

Just because a person has these feelings doesn’t mean they are healthy or will lead to a good outcome if they are gratified by acting on them. In fact, statistics and research show these feelings and behaviors lead to dire and dangerous behaviors and negative outcomes.
Having certain feelings and desires does not give anyone a separate status or identity in God’s eyes, in fact, Scripture does not recognize any exemption or exclusion on the basis of desires or self-perception. See: I Corinthian 6:9-20, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 2

God is perfectly inclusive and levels the playing field…no one is exalted over another on the basis of money, social status, education or special-ness.

Each and every soul on the planet is absolutely unique and never to be repeated, hand-made by God, a sacred gift to the world, made in His image.

We are all in the same boat, disoriented, mis-directed, with mistaken identities until we begin the journey beginning with – abject HUMILITY – and HONESTY, the recognition that I am a sinner, that I can’t fix or change that and that I need HELP and the revelation that Jesus is Lord and Savior who died to pay for my sins and give me power to overcome them, day by day, step by step along with the rest of His Church.

Sorry, Susan, Louie, Gene, Bruce, but you do not have a case in God’s courtroom.

You are not a special case.

All sin is sin. Sin causes pain and comes from pain and leads to more pain and separation from God.

Jesus is the Way back to God, by way of the Cross, the Truth to guide us and the Love to keep putting up with us and to help us put up with each other.

Jesus said, ‘You are my disciples if you:
- take up your Cross and follow me (Galatians 5:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27)
- keep my Word. (John 14:15-16)
- love one another. (John 15:12)
- bear much fruit. (Genesis 1:28, John 15:8)

Grab your cross and walk with us as we walk with the Victorious Risen Lord, The Holy Righteous Father we never had, The Man who is Faithful and True, The King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

Bob: “If you can’t shock or insult or scandalize someone the wind goes right out of the sails.”

S’pose that may have been a small part of Benny’s plan?

So OK, when will we see the inhibition paperwork come down from 815? The Pope is engaged in BORDER CROSSING! KJS calls Rowan and complain. Oops, the line is busy. He’s on a conference call talking to the Queen who is considering following in the footsteps of Tony Blair and he is also talking with an intervention worker who is helping him deal with his recently acquired post traumatic stress disorder. KJS may be thinking that this is her moment since the ABC has lost a vote of confidence that now supersedes all previous voting.

I thought I must have missed something, so I went back and read the various announcements of Benedict XVI’s plan and I’ll be darned if I can find any mention of homosexuals, women priests, LBGT stuff or anything these folks mention. Of course, if your life is consumed with sexual issues, I imagine you think everyone else is the same. The common thread is do you want a church that thinks it is true, that teaches specific doctrine, that does not change to conform to society? My answer is, “Well, yeah.” Funny how all this is just a plot by the Papists against the whole list of Episcopo “victims.” And since none of the “victims” are going to move over to Rome, why do they care if all the backwards conservatives do so? Oh, that’s right – they’ll take their bank accounts with them. Silly me.

Susan Russell refers to “patriarchal dogma.” Do you think that the insulting word there is patriarchal or dogma? Is there matriarchal dogma*? Or should the first words be written patriarchaldogma, because both are both offensive to her?

*I was tempted to enumerate “don’t run in the house,” “if you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way,” “because I said so,” and on and on…

Oh, and by the way, that “God isn’t finished with the Episcopal church yet” line is recycled from Jesse Jackson’s speech to the Democratic convention in 1984 – “God isn’t finished with me yet.” Sad that these folks even have to plagerize “cutsey” lines.

Theresa Z, There is indeed Matriarchal dogma and you listed some of the high lights. For a complete recitatation of the creed of Mom you should watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXgoJ0f5EsQ

It goes to show just how big a shock this has been that it’s Day Three and the Gay Church propagandists are still stammering and trying to pull themselves together to make a coherent response.

So far, they’ve had to rely on the Insouciant Shrug Manoeuvre: the “nothing new” talking points, coupled with “and hardly anybody is going to go, so who cares anyway?” As the days have gone by (and the conservative jubilation shows no sign of abating) the resentment has started to bubble, so now we’re getting “Well, if you WANT to belong to a church full of backward, homophobic poopyheads, go right ahead! (Oh, and by the way – GALILEO!)” That’s going to be about as effective as one would expect, so I anticipate that by Monday we’ll be reading increasingly bitter denunciations of the sin of “triumphalism”, along with soulful laments by gentle, misunderstood divorced couples who were cruelly cast out of the Catholic Church, only to find a safe haven in the loving, understanding arms of the Episcopal Church.

“There are plenty of Catholics struggling against patriarchy within their own faith community . . . ”
Then they’re probably not very committed to the mission of the Catholic Church, are they?

” . . .but now the Vatican is basically saying they’re the church for Christians who only want supposedly straight cis men in positions of power.”
You might as well be speaking Chinese. The Catholic Church is for Christians who want to follow Jesus in union with the successor of Peter. It’s been that way for centuries – long before there was any concept of “homosexuality” (as opposed to homosexual behavior) or “transgender/cisgender theory”. It’s also notable that one of the first lines of attack that buggerers have against those who note the sinfulness of buggery is to accuse the disapproving ones of that very same sin. If you really believe “there’s nothing wrong with it”, how on earth is it rational for you to use it as an insult?

“And they’re saying bigotry trumps almost everything that’s divided the two churches since the Reformation.” Really? No more transubstantiation? Only 66 books in the Bible? Abandoning some sacraments? Getting rid of the intercession of saints? Abandoning indulgences and penance? Recognizing orders that were previously declared utterly null and absolutely void? Must have missed those. Meanwhile there is plenty of bigotry coming from one corner . . . .

“I thought I must have missed something, so I went back and read the various announcements of Benedict XVI’s plan and I’ll be darned if I can find any mention of homosexuals, women priests, LBGT stuff or anything these folks mention.”

And that, of course, is the problem. They’re having a hard time responding because thay can’t spin it to be about me ME ME!!!!!!

Speaking of which, I cannot believe that VGR — The Simple Country Bishop — has been quiet for this long…

D Pawlak stole my thundered. I was going to say the Holy Father should have maybe orchestrated a trade rather than just throwing out the welcome mat.

Hmmmm. I wonder if good ol’ Fr. Cutie down Florida way will use this provision as a way to get back into the Catholic Church. Would make Frade-O look kinda silly.

These liberal revisionist shriekers are worried about conservative Episcopalians or conservative Anglo-Catholics in TEc swimming the Tiber. Should they be?

Is the Vatican opening its doors sufficient to finally bring these Institutionalist-Enablers out of TEc and into Rome? Or will they continue to stay in TEc?

Chris, have you done a reckoning lately of which players have been “traded” between TEC and the Catholic Church? I think we Romans are pretty happy with the folks we’ve gained, from Elizabeth Seton to Fr. Rutler.

Helpfully, Wikipedia has lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Roman_Catholics#Anglicanism_and_churches_in_full_communion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_converted_to_Catholicism
(not categorized by their previous religious affiliation, alas)

I’m with Dale Matson here – I fully expect Ms. Schori to issue a deposition of Pope Benedict, depriving him of the right* to function as a clergyman at any TEC church. And should anyone take advantage of the Pope’s offer, she will promptly depose their clergy, and sue to get the buildings and assets. Of course, the tough part about that will be that many of them have never been a part of TEC to begin with – such as TAC parishes (in the USA, they’re the AAC Continuing Church). Still, such things have not dissuaded her from ecclesiastical discipline or legal action in the past……..

* – Having visited the Vatican this summer, I’m quite sure the Pope already has plenty of toilet paper, and doesn’t need any from Ms. Schori – and he undoubtedly would view serving as a priest/bishop in TEC as a punishment, not a right.

“now the Vatican is basically saying they’re the church for Christians who only want supposedly straight cis men in positions of power. And they’re saying bigotry trumps almost everything that’s divided the two churches since the Reformation. It’s a pretty disgusting recruitment strategy.”

That is the spin that the liberals and the media and even some commentors on this blog (even I) have been promoting: that the Vatican is reaching out to people disaffected by the liberalism of ACoC and TEC.

For the sake of argument, assume that there are two “types” of disaffected Anglicans: a) those who are biblically ignorant but dislike TEC policies for cultural reasons (“give me that old time religion…”), and b) those who are Biblically well-taught and dislike TEC policies because they are heresy.

Susan Russel assumes that Benny is poaching (a) type Anglicans, who will (she assumes) go to the church that outwardly most resembles the old conservative Episcopal Church. But it seems to me that most of the disaffected Anglicans are not (a) type, because the common liberal culture is now so pervasive that most Biblical illiterates will probably be quite comfortable with TEC’s free sex Unitarianism. I know a number of such Anglicans.

So how well will Benny do with (b) type Anglicans? Not very well, I suspect. Anglicans embraced Reform theology for good reasons, and those who are Biblically aware will not forget those reasons. For many (b) type Anglicans, the RC option will be no more attractive than the status quo.

But the liberal spin described by Susan Russell is convenient for them. It re-packages and misquotes the Vatican announcement as proof that non-liberals are shallow ignorant bigots, and that the core reason for the current schism is sexual.

Bill (not IB), the Anglican alphabet soup is very confusing. In the U.S., it’s the ACA (Anglican Church in America) which is the branch of TAC which will consider this Vatican offer. No telling how many of their parishes will actually go.

To further confuse matters, someone (Fuinseoig?) was speculating that the new ordinariate would be called the Anglican Catholic Church. Nope. That one’s already taken by a Continuing Church, and its Archbishop could actually be a Catholic bishop if he went over, since he’s unmarried. Last I heard that body is not interested in becoming Roman, but things could get even more confusing for a while.

I just tried leaving a comment on Susan Russell’s blog, with the same content as the one I left here previously. Moderated. Damn. Maybe she’ll still pick up on it and comment on how hateful and exclusionary we Catholics are. One can only hope…

What’s wrong with: Catholic Church, Anglican Rite, like Catholic Church, Maronite Rite or Catholic Church, Greek Rite or Catholic Church, Chaldean Rite etc etc etc. You can’t use ROMAN Catholic as it would be a contradiction in terms, and besides that term is erroneos having originally been coined by the Anglicans since they believed they remained Catholic. The correct title for the main and most common rite in the Catholic Church is Catholic Church, Latin Rite.

Pilgrim, we may not have heard from the Simple Country Bishop, but JS Spong has come out with the usual childish “I am quite simply not interested in this debate. It does not speak to my world” blather here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_shelby_spong/2009/10/ecclesiastical_kindergarten_games.html

Ms. Russell posted it. Awaiting replies…

I like the swap idea.

The Catholics trade all the gay ones to the Piskies for all the straight Piskies.

The Episcopal Church would boom in the short term (2% of 1.2 billion is quite a lot (2% of just the Catholics in the US would be approximately the current Episcopal membership, so given that the gay ones would remain, the Episcopal Church would still grow)). But if that trade happened, which church would still be around in forty years?

What a way to a quicker end….

Yearning for a journey of faith safe from faithful Christians, orthodox clergy, and those pesky Scriptures stopping you from doing stuff you like?

Then, TEC WELCOMES YOU! (Lock, stock and liturgical dance!)

“Growing the church? Growing the church?!! How do you figure?”

Well, it is growing smaller…

Desposing any Episcopalian minister who becomes RC is actually the appropriate use of the canon that’s being abused in cases such as that of Bp. Ackerman. Did she formally depose Bp. Steenson who did become Roman Catholic?

Wasn’t the ACC the one that merged with the REC? There used to be a website about it, but I can’t find it now.

[...] the Midwest Conservative Journal, a few sweet [...]

It proves once again how much the nutcases actually **need** traditional believers. It’s no fun at all being abnormal if you are the only one in the room. There MUST be normal people or there’s no point. If you can’t shock or insult or scandalize someone the wind goes right out of the sails. Very sad, but very true.

Why do you think they are all up-in-arms about this? Why do you think groups like Call to Action stick around the Catholic Church if they find her theology so offensive?

It’s because when you’re with like-minded folk you cease to be a rebel. You’re just one liberal theologian in a big ol’ barrel of liberal theologians and it gets really boring after a while.

By the way – I love how they’re all whining about “inclusiveness” when they wouldn’t even begin to entertain listening to those conservative Anglicans who thing God’s law trumps political correctness. They are the biggest bunch of flaming hypocrites.

FW Ken, no, that’s the APA (Anglican Province of American) which is tied to the REC. REC is part of ACNA, but APA isn’t, so that’s confusing. Website.

And LaVallette, there’s a small body called (I think) “Holy Catholic Church, Anglican Rite.” This was, I believe, a tiny split-off from the ACC (Anglican Catholic Church). Really, all the good names are taken.

two-thirds of TEO outlets have an ASA of less than 100.

Chris, this is such a non-spiritual way of seeing the church, counting only physical persons in attendance. To the eyes of faith The Episcopal Church is brimming with spiritual presences.

One might say they are legion.

The APA is here. The one above is the ACC website.

JOS from feministing.com writes, “…fear of teh gays and teh womens…”

Wow. I am in awe of the persuasiveness of that argument. Hopefully JOS can find meaningful employment as a caption writer over at LOLCATS.

Wow. I am in awe of the persuasiveness of that argument. Hopefully JOS can find meaningful employment as a caption writer over at LOLCATS.

You know, I thought the same thing.

Thanks Katherine. I admire your ability to swim in Alphabet Soup.

Christopher Hathaway, you witty critter, you!

One of the many things I love about this blog is the cleverness (and humor) of the comments.

LaValette and Katherine: How about “Catholic Church, Anglican Use?” Holy Church already owns it, it’s time tested and ready to go.

Christopher Hathaway,

If I catch your drift you do not mean “legion” in the sense of Roman Soldiers.

Bovina Bloviator, Bingo!. And it’s actually Catholic in the ordinary use of the word with a capital letter.

A question for the blogmind: why is the Anglican left so enraged by this? I can understand why the Catholic left is sputtering–the newbies will be unsympathetic to their concerns.

But Benedict just did the “inclusivity” wing of Anglicanism a giant favor by offering to take all their Anglo-Catholic opponents off their hands. In short, he’s made it a lot easier for them to “win.”

Instead, you see, e.g., Susan Russell bellowing in anger. Sounding threatened, even.

The only thing I can think of is that despite the rhetoric, the left senses that the ultimate triumph over their foes will be an empty one.

But I’m open to other insights, because I am genuinely puzzled.

Dale, I want to read that letter when she gets around to sending it.

But does anyone know if she’s made any statement herself, or where she is this week or what she’s doing?

Ms. Russell has replied to my lovely wife (Amy P.) on her blog…

Dale, I was wondering that myself.

I think it’s because this takes the conservatives seriously. It’s one thing for the extreme left to mock them as a tiny crazy fringe (All Is Well! Only a few malcontents!) who are on the “wrong side of history” and are on the way out; that’s consoling for the progressives and bolsters their opinion of themselves as being in the right and the natural victors.

But when a big concern like the Catholic Church – and despite all the sneering and jeering, we’re still a force to be reckoned with in terms of size, of history, of influence, of survival, of theology, of resistance to the Work of the Spirit TM – takes the trouble to make concessions and to recognise them as having valid opinions, that’s a different matter.

The Big, Wise, Important, Forward-Looking, Totally in the Right Victors can’t get the time of day from the Pope, but this small group of out-of-touch losers and relics can? That has to hurt! And it has to seem like a deliberate insult, to the kind of thinking that sees itself as victimized and insulted by the patriarchy/the Man/Santa Claus when he didn’t bring the Barbie Dreamhouse when they were six.

Katherine,

Unfortunately, mind and fingers missed connections – I knew it was the ACA, but typed AAC. Thanks for identifying my error.

ACC is NOT interested in this move – I’m in ACC myself, and the topic came up when TAC’s application to move to Rome was publicized. The notion of a similar move by ACC was firmly dismissed.

There have been several iterations of “Holy Catholic Church – Anglican Rite.” The original was the “Anglican Rite Jurisdiction of the Americas”, which was supposed to be an “umbrella” group to unite the various Continuing Churches. ARJA was absorbed into the EMC back in 1993, and subsequently several small groups led by people who had once been in ARJA adopted similar names including “Anglican Rite” and “Holy Catholic”, presumably to capitalize on the efforts of the previous Church. None of them has anything to do with the ACC.

The misandry coming from these broads is palpable.

why is the Anglican left so enraged by this?

Short answer: narcissistic rage.

Longer answer: people like Susan Russell, Elizabeth Kaeton, and Bishop Kate have Seen the Light, Been to the Mountain. Gawd has spoken: sodomy is good. Anything that contradicts them is evil.

And, I concur with Fuinseoig in that the over-the-top reaction from the left is because this action by the Pope makes it clear that the conservatives are being viewed as legitimate, while they (the liberals) are relegated to a dubious status somewhere between apostasy and heresy. What the left has wanted all along is official recognition and universal approval of their position, and the Pope has given them a double insult by approving their *foes* and simultaneously disapproving (the left’s) position and doctrines.

When you’re wrong and in your heart you know that’s the case, it’s infuriating to have that fact pointed out to you; you prefer to have someone else stand up and validate your thinking, so that you can ignore the inconvenient voice within you. The repeated, childish usage of adjectives (homophobic, bigoted, patristic, hate-filled, etc.) by the left instead of presenting arguments is a good example of this. When you can’t refute the argument of your opponent, you insult him or try to discredit him.

This is particularly evident in the writings of some like Susan Russell. She recently complained bitterly about a post on T19 as being hateful because it used the term “evil” (and IMO it was a childish post) yet she uses equally spiteful terms (and uses more of them) in her condemnations of the Pope, ++Robert Duncan, et al. Having identified that the pot is black, she jumps into it and makes kettle soup.

Thanks, Bill (not IB). I attended an ACC parish myself for several years, Fr., now Bishop, Haverland’s parish, in fact. At one time in the latter ’90s there was a Synod hosted there. There were several rather odd clerics in attendance. After that, there was a split of some type, involving apparently the folks I had mentally labeled odd. I thought the HCC-AR came from that. I could easily be wrong. I can keep the main groups straight, but not all of the small splinters.

It proves once again how much the nutcases actually **need** traditional believers. It’s no fun at all being abnormal if you are the only one in the room. There MUST be normal people or there’s no point. If you can’t shock or insult or scandalize someone the wind goes right out of the sails. Very sad, but very true.

Why do you think they are all up-in-arms about this? Why do you think groups like Call to Action stick around the Catholic Church if they find her theology so offensive?

It’s because when you’re with like-minded folk you cease to be a rebel. You’re just one liberal theologian in a big ol’ barrel of liberal theologians and it gets really boring after a while.

Amen. Derrida was wrong. Not all binary oppositions are symmetrical and therefore reversible. C.S. Lewis is right. Evil is parasitic upon good. I’d only add the qualification that heresy has in the past spurred people on to more careful theological thought, leading to a renewed appreciation of biblical truths, although I suspect this would only be necessary in a fallen world.

“So I say, go for it. Take His Holiness Father Infallibility up on his kind off to “come on down” and go join his church. And leave mine alone.”

I CAN HAZ CHURCH?

The thread on StandFirm has gotten so long, it took me a while to find this one comment, but I think it’s very perceptive:

Because this action provides a way forward for disaffected Anglo-Catholics in the CoE, it paradoxically might make it more likely that ACs would stay in the CoE. The answer to the question “So what are you going to do about it if we shove women bishops down your throat?” has now been provided. ACs have something to say besides “A code of practice won’t do.” The leadership now knows what ACs will do if they don’t get what they want. The leadership therefore might be more accommodating to prevent a large and embarrassing exodus.

Also (and do not underestimate this point) this action by Rome strips from liberals the ability to impose a solution that causes pain. The ‘payback’ aspect that was just below the surface of this conflict has been vitiated. This fact is going to make liberals sullen and angry. They rather enjoyed having ACs at dagger’s point, and will not be pleased to see their enjoyment taken from them.

The Earth has shifted. We shall see which buildings fall and which continue to stand.

carl

Smurf Breath’s reference to C.S. Lewis is apropos; to me, the most horrible Ghost in ‘The Great Divorce’ was the woman who drove her husband to his death, only to find that he’d gone to Heaven and she was stuck down in Hell. Her solution? Insist that they give him back to her, because she had to have someone to “do things to”. I think the “winners” of the Anglican Wars were looking forward to many, many Synods and General Conventions where they could satisfy their malice by making the vanquished shuffle along slowly in chains, dragging Mrs. Schori’s victory chariot behind them. Now that’s all been snatched away.

FW Ken, no, that’s the APA (Anglican Province of American) which is tied to the REC. REC is part of ACNA, but APA isn’t, so that’s confusing.

Is APA part of the Judean People’s Front? Or is it part of the People’s Front of Judea?

Why are the leftists so mad? Read Jonah Goldbergs’ “Liberal Fascism”. Now in paperback. http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/176-5550805-9762507

“Why are the leftists so mad?”

If by “mad” you mean angry, it’s because they’re not getting their way. If by “mad” you mean insane, it’s both cause and effect of their inversion of moral values.

Regarding what Jos has to say about the patriarchy in the Catholic Church, some would say it’s instead evidence of the power of women (link courtesy of the American Papist):

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/10/anglican-bishop-confirms-st-therese-is.html

See what happens when you let St Thérèse of Lisieux into the country? October 1-2: Her relics rest in York Minster (one of the cathedrals that changed hands during the English Reformation from Roman Catholic to Anglican possession). October 20th: Announcement of the Apostolic Consititution.

Moral of the story? You don’t mess with the Little Flower.

http://www.yorkminster.org/news/story350/ten-thousand-see-saints-relics-at-york-minster.html

Quoth The Little Myrmidon: “Wow. I am in awe of the persuasiveness of that argument. Hopefully JOS can find meaningful employment as a caption writer over at LOLCATS.”

LOLFeministes? Or is that not possible because feminism is NOT FUNNY?

“After that, there was a split of some type, involving apparently the folks I had mentally labeled odd. I thought the HCC-AR came from that. I could easily be wrong. I can keep the main groups straight, but not all of the small splinters.”

Katherine is correct. The split came in 1997. There was a power struggle among the ACC bishops, during the incapacity of Archbishop william Lewis. The losing faction split off and formed the HCC-AR. Most of them were a bunch of unprincipled rogues, although associated with them were the most dedicated “Orthodoxophiles” in the ACC, many, if not most, of them located outside the USA. Two years later, in 1999 the “Orthodoxophiles” left the HCC-AR and formed the HCC-Western Rite or HCC-WR, which has since disclaimed the word “Anglican” altogether.

“Bill (not IB)” is correct, too, except that none of the groups coming from the ARJA ever adopted the moniker HCC.

Thanks, Invicta Veritas. I remember Bp. Lewis, a kind and saintly man.

Dale,

“No Popery!” runs deep, even in liberal apostates?

peace,
Zach

P.S.: Happy Anniversary! Do take time out from the Investigator work to make Heather happy, willya?

[...] here, my main man Dale Price [...]

Moral of the story? You don’t mess with the Little Flower.

ROTFL!!!

True story: My first job right out of college was as a proofreader for a financial printer in Boston’s warehouse district. The owner was a Catholic (although you coulda fooled us, the way he drove us, overworked us, and underpaid us >:-( but I digress). Anyway, when business was slow, he did pro bono typesetting and printing for a Carmelite (men’s) monastery. The first pro bono project was a re-typesetting and reprinting of Saint Therese’s Story of a Soul. We would work on it during slack periods, between paying work.

Well, almost as soon as we started working on this project, regular business picked up. A lot. The print-shop owner was ecstatic. (The rest of us somewhat less so. Menials usually take a jaundiced view of the kind of corporate success that results in a lot more work for them — LOL!) Anyway, from that point on, the owner went around saying, “The Little Flower is coming through for us! The Little Flower’s getting us business!”

I suppose I should have thanked the Little Flower profusely for her rain-making expertise, but during enforced overtime (when we’d be working way past midnight while lawyers and accountants sat in the outer office wrangling over revisions to proxy statements and bond offering circulars), I harbored less than holy thoughts about the whole thing, I must confess. Mea culpa, Saint Therese!!

Diane

Invicta Veritas,

There were at least two cases of former ARJA clergymen creating an “Anglican Rite” offshoot. I’ve tried hard not to “name names” or point fingers in my comments, and I stand by that position. But, if one is familiar with various Mid-Atlantic “Continuing” (the term must be applied carefully, in this case) bishops/groups (particularly those who have gone through multiple associations/personifications) my primary reference should be pretty obvious. The second comes from a bishop on the West Coast who abrogated the name for his tiny group. (“ARSA”, anyone?)

In both of these cases, there was never a significant following; the “jurisdictions” consisted primarily of a bishop, his parish, and two or three other parishes.

(I had a close relationship with the late ++Robert Q. Kennaugh of ARJA, so I do speak with some direct knowledge.)

I missed a clarifying portion of my comment – the letterhead of the groups I mention titled them “HCC-xxxx”, or “xxxx-HCC”. Their “alphabet soup” name may not have included “HCC”, but it was part of the way they styled themselves.

diane, 471 years after plundering the shrine of St. Thomas à Becket and destroying his bones, they allowed the bones of another saint back into a cathedral.

A French saint, to boot.

Were they mad?

I’m pretty sure St. Jeanne d’Arc found it funny, too.

[...] COMES THE TOLERANT HATE– The left-wing line on Pope Benedict XVI’s Anglican initiative has begun to emerge. It’s [...]