Oh, pics pleeease....
I certainly have seen where her rainbow styles have caused ridiculous fashion:
(incidentally, that file's name is "technicolor_yawn.jpg")
Posted on 06/26/2008 10:26:37 AM PDT by NYer
Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post
Published: Thursday, June 26, 2008
Formal arrangements have yet to be made, but it now appears that the critical decisions have already been taken for a dissolution of the Anglican Communion. Every 10 years, all the world's Anglican bishops meet at the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace. They are scheduled to meet this summer, but already some 250 have decided not to attend, boycotting because of the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, to discipline American and Canadian Anglicans for blessing same-sex unions and ordaining actively homosexual clergy.
Many of those who are not attending Lambeth are in Jerusalem this week for an alternative meeting, to discuss how they see the way forward. The parallel meetings are a clear manifestation that the bonds of communion have broken down. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not in Jerusalem, and is not welcome there. The breach appears irreparable and therefore the Anglican Communion's days as a global community centred in Canterbury are numbered.
That is a sadness for those, like myself, who have affection for the Anglican sensibility. But sensibilities are not doctrines, and it cannot be the case that members of the same communion can hold directly contradictory views on matters of grave importance. The Canadian and American proponents of same-sex marriages are arguing that homosexual acts can be morally good, and even sacramental. The traditional Christian view is that such acts are sinful. That is a gap that cannot be bridged: Either one holds to the ancient and constant teaching of the Christian Church, or one rejects it in favour of a different position. It cannot be that both views exist side-by-side as equally acceptable options.
It is not a disagreement only about sexual morality. It goes deeper than that, to what status the ancient and apostolic tradition has in the Church
today. There can be no doubt that the blessing of homosexual relationships is entirely novel and in contradiction to the Christian tradition. So if that tradition no longer holds, it raises questions about the apostolicity of those communities which have abandoned it.
An additional sadness for Catholic and Orthodox Christians is that if the Anglican Communion embraces the path of doctrinal innovation, they will be closing the door on closer ecumenical relations. By unilaterally choosing to do what Catholics and Orthodox have always taught is outside our common tradition, they would be choosing the path of division.
That has already become dramatically evident. I remember being at the opening ceremonies of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 in Rome, when pope John Paul II opened the Holy Door at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside The Walls. He invited the then-archbishop of canter-bury, Dr. George Carey, and an Orthodox archbishop to open the door together with him, three abreast in unity.
By the time of John Paul's death in 2005, matters had deteriorated significantly. The original draft for his funeral called for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople to offer joint prayers at the conclusion of the funeral Mass, but it never came off. By then it was thought more doubtful, above all in the eyes of the Orthodox, that the Anglican Communion was still in the historic tradition of the apostolic faith.
This comment resonates with me. I remember my visits to Anglican churches in England. I remember the emptiness, the short ceremony and talk of can't-remember-what by the Anglican divine. I also remember a middle-aged fellow in a tweed suit devoutly kneeling and praying with his common book. I recall Anglicans, whose faith seems to be dissolved in a cloud of contradictory sentiments, insisting that their children grow up churched, lest they turn out like the parents themselves--unchurched. I think God will reward the persistence of some of these Anglicans.
Among the British theologians, Anglican or denomenational, of the last couple hundred years you will find many of surpassing excellence, such as Bishop Butler. But with the good you find the tares. It is as if one hand of Anglicanism was busy tearing down and undermining what the other hand was trying to build up. The result was a collapse into the know-nothing-ism of the 19th century. Theology is bunk. Big words are bunk. Reasoning about God is bunk. History is bunk. Miracles are bunk. Everything is bunk. And now, the Anglican situation of today.
I suppose many causes led up to this situation. One material cause I venture to put forth is that Anglicanism cut itself off from prior history of Christian thought. This is quite evident from their books. Rather than applying St. Paul's "take what is good, leave the rest", I guess they thought it was all bunk and not worth considering. Thus they built their theology on a foundation of sand.
“The problem is that even if the Anglican Communion excises the cancer that is rotting the communion from the head, the remainder of the body will still be split into a more Orthodox and a more Reformed faction.”
As we Greeks say, a fish rots from the head down. Look at Anglicanism headed by the likes of the Arch Druid of Canterbury, the Great White Heretic of Canada and that silly woman heresiarch with the rainbow oven mitt for a mitre here in the States. Institutional white, Western, Northern Anglicanism is no longer anything recognizable as Christian. What assuredly IS recognizable are many of the traditional and orthodox Anglican communities here and around the Western world. It will be interesting to see if those groups, and for the matter the Global South, end up in communion with Rome or Holy Orthodoxy.
If the SSPX are schismatics, does that mean that they are heretics? What heresy have they committed? They do explicitly deny sedevacantism, and I’m not sure that’s a heresy.
Oh, pics pleeease....
I certainly have seen where her rainbow styles have caused ridiculous fashion:
(incidentally, that file's name is "technicolor_yawn.jpg")
When one of their leaders - namely Williamson - asserts that the Holy See teaches heresy, then he himself is teaching the heresy that the Church is defectible.
Or is this the very picture you were referring to?
As I suggested above, there is a third alternative. One of the main groups within the Anglican communion insisting on Scriptural moral teaching is the Anglican diocese of Sydney, Australia. That diocese is decidedly neither Catholic nor Orthodox in tone, but Reformed in its theology.
Sheesh, what's in the water of your high school?
>> When one of their leaders - namely Williamson - asserts that the Holy See teaches heresy, then he himself is teaching the heresy that the Church is defectible. <<
I’m not sure about Williamson, but I believe the notion is that Vatican 2, and many actions by the Pope afterward, may contain elements of heresy, but don’t violate the notion of infallibility because there was no invocation of infallibility: The objectionable portions of Vatican II were explicitly non-dogmatic in nature, and Paul VI’s abolishment of the Latin Mass (can we please call a spade a spade? The Latin Mass was abolished by Paul VI!) invited heresy, but was an act of governance, not of establishing doctrine.
“That diocese is decidedly neither Catholic nor Orthodox in tone, but Reformed in its theology.”
Oh, I agree to great extent and yet its surprising how very, very Orthodox some of the theology of the “evangelical” wing of the Anglicans can be. Read some of the tracts of Bishop Ryle from the 19th century. On the other hand, I have also heard that some of these “orthodox” Anglican groups are truly and profoundly Reformed Protestant.
Reminds me of a little girl playing “dress up”. It’s all make believe.
And what’s with the use of such a prepostrously large miter anyway? It’s three times the size of the POPE’S! (Right, she’s playing gay pope.)
Dead on and very astute in your observations. This bears repeating.
I think it can be shown that SSPX rejects certain dogmas of Vatican I. They may not admit so formally, but their words and actions reveal it.
>> I think it can be shown that SSPX rejects certain dogmas of Vatican I. <<
Really? Vatican I? That is a fascinating charge. What dogmas do you see as being challenged by SSPX?
Pastor Aeternus Ch.3, On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.