Herewith the first dispatch from The Continuum's newly appointed Antipodean correspondent, our already well-known commentator, Sandra McColl:
At the end of this month, two events will occur in the Anglican Church of Australia by which it will begin to catch up with The Episcopal Church and will forge ‘ahead’ of the Church of England. The two events will be two purported consecrations of women to the episcopate.
The announcements were made last month, when first the Archbishop of Perth announced the appointment of the Melbourne-trained Kay Goldsworthy, currently serving in Perth as Archdeacon, and then the Archbishop of Melbourne announced the appointment of Barbara Darling, originally from Sydney, both of them from the original vintage of priestesses of 1992.
The announcements were snapped up by the mainstream media, with the shattering of the stained-glass ceiling as a recurring theme. Now, it just happens that the strangely named National Gallery of Victoria has a Great Hall, built some time at the end of the 60s or beginning of the 70s (I don’t remember exactly when, but I know I was still at school at the time), which has a stained-glass roof. It’s actually rather a marvellous thing, and it became very fashionable to lie on the floor in order to admire it. But the Great Hall is not a place of worship, and places of worship don’t have stained glass roofs or ceilings. Australian church buildings have ceilings of stone, timber, plaster -— the same materials as are used the world over. Indeed, I have yet to see in one of them so much as a stained-glass skylight.
In an article in The Age, entitled "The stained-glass ceiling has been shattered", Muriel Porter, who has been in the vanguard of the campaign for the ordination of women for at least 25 years, celebrated the Melbourne announcement and compared it with another recent announcement, that of the appointment of a woman as the next Governor-General. Why a woman becoming Governor-General should be so remarkable is a bit of a mystery, since women have been State Governors already, and, after all, the job of the Governor-General is to represent the Queen. (A bishop, on the other hand, represents . . . oh, never mind, I give up.)
As might have been appropriate for an article in a secular newspaper, Dr Porter’s article was cast entirely in the language and images of the secular equal rights struggle. This was indeed largely how the battle had been fought. Perhaps knowing that most ordinary sheep in the pews wouldn’t easily buy into God the Mother, the innovators fed them a puréed and spiced version of that doctrine, so-called "inclusive" language, and concentrated on the skills needed to do what was perceived to be a priest’s, or a bishop’s, job.
The use of the secular women’s rights argument had been highlighted by Bishop Harry Entwistle of the Australian branch of the TAC, who wrote on The Messenger Journal website that:
the proponents of women’s ordination did not argue their case on theological grounds, many of which are difficult for Anglican laity and some clergy to untangle. They argued from the perspective of justice, equality and women’s rights and status, which laity understands only too readily. They managed to turn it from a religious argument concerning creation, incarnation, salvation and the nature of the Church to one of human rights.
They gambled on the general ignorance of the Anglican laity in matters of scriptural knowledge, Church order and tradition and found they were on a winning streak, aided and abetted by the secular Western culture. This is not to say that Dr Porter did not use scriptural language or images. She referred to the Diocese of Sydney, which had ‘hardened its heart’ against women’s ordination. Now, I’m no fan of the Diocese of Sydney, with its Cathedral Holy Table with wheels (what would Ezekiel say about that?), its lay-presidency movement and its view of ordained ministry which is all about preaching, teaching and headship and doesn’t appear to have any sacramental sense at all. But the image of hardening of heart does not do justice to bishops and their people who have sought to maintain a principled stand against theological novelty.
The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia (“ACA”—just to be confusing) begins thus, with three Fundamental Declarations:
1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.
2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.
3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.
Over the years, better legal and theological minds than mine have determined that the ordination of women is not consistent with any of the above. I prefer not to trouble myself with the details of the deliberations of the Appellate Tribunal over the years, but it would appear that the ACA’s peak legal body has merely reflected an increasingly administrative view of holy orders, and the episcopate in particular, that has developed in the ACA generally.
The bishops of the ACA have met and worked out a protocol for dealing with women in the episcopate. It contains some statements about making appropriate episcopal ministry available to those who can’t accept the innovation. There are also recommendations that at every consecration, at least three of the consecrating bishops should be male. They just don’t get it. How can they provide alternative pastoral provisions for people whose misgivings they simply do not comprehend?
I do not know where Ms Goldsworthy is going to be working after her "consecration". Miss Darling, however, will be given the position of Director of Diocesan Ministries. Do you really need to be a bishop to do that job? Perhaps it shows just how far the sacramental literacy of the Diocese of Melbourne has fallen in the past 20 or so years. Another sign of this is found in a recent Ad Clerum from the Archbishop of Melbourne, who gave directions to his clergy as to the proper way of using unfermented grape juice in separate glasses for Holy Communion. Gluten-free wafers are also requested to be provided for those who require them.
33 comments:
This is sad. Let me ask here if this group of Australian Anglican's sees themselves as part of Apostolic Succession and if they believe that they are acting from Right Reason?
Pat(rick)
Pat:
I think there are some who would think they are part of Apostolic Succession. There would also be some who probably wouldn't greatly care.
As to Right Reason, I don't think they've given Hooker's triad of Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason a thought for a long time--or if they have, they've left out the 'Right' and given their conception of Reason the pre-eminence.
Mind you, when I objected (along with two friends) at the third 'ordination' of priestesses in Melbourne in 1992, and said that I was doing so because it was contrary to Scripture and Tradition, the Archbishop replied to the effect that it was perfectly consistent with Scripture and Tradition.
I think they'll have a harder time thinking they are acting consistently with the Vincentian Canon. Perhaps Fr Hart might like to introduce you to that one.
Thank you, Sandra, for this excellent report. It makes the heart sad, but God is not hindered in the working out of His promise of Salvation. This muddies the waters further and most people don't want to wade into muddy water.
Sandra,
Thanks for responding. You are kind and a great deal helpful. Most everything you have explained to me regarding this issue, which ultimately is simply the issue of proper authority in Christ's Church, I concur with and already have a good understanding of. I have obviously failed entirely to communicate what my concerns are related to authority in the Church. Perhaps it would be easier if you or someone else could explain the essential difference(s) between the Roman Catholic Rule of Faith- Scripture, Tradition, Authoritative teaching office/Magesterium and The Anglican Rule of Scripture, Tradition,Right Reason. To me, the idea of Right Reason is simply a given in the matter and would be included in the Magesterium of the RCC. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Pat
Good Morning.
The recent developments within the "Anglican Communion" have been sad and in the opinion of many, a further development away from historic Catholicism than it already is.
Concerning the "Australian Declaration":
1. The Anglican Communion calls itself a continuation of the ancient Catholic Church. But according to her "39 articles" it is by definition, a Calvinistic Protestant church - which is needless to say, far from the testimony of the Catholic fathers en toto.
2. As far as her second point that the holy Writings are the ultimate court of arbitration and contain "everything necessary for salvation", sounds like nothing more than the fantasy of sola scriptura.
3. On the third point, sadly the Ecclesia Catholica does not recognize the orders of Anglicans for a reason, furthermore, the modern developments of liberalism and feminism in her orders validates what we as Catholics say.
We pray that Anglicans take a serious look at their present situation and instead of all the chaos and confusion, look for stability and theological order in the historic Catholic Church.
Good Day.
- regulafide@blogspot.com
The Rule of Faith for the Church in England was declared to be the whole body or canonof the Bible and the three creeds expounded according to the sense or import of the words and according to the approved Doctors of the Church; and all opinions were declared erroneus which had been condemned by the four Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon and all other Councils sith that time which were in any point consonant to the same. (Dixon’s, History of the Church of England. pg.416.) This was decided by Convocation at the time of the discussion on the 10 Articles.
In our Church is a statement of belief tells us that we hold,
The Faith once revealed to the saints (Jude3.)
This inscribed in Scripture
and interpreted by the Holy fathers in Council and the Consensus of the Greek fathers.
Corresponds with the injunction of the Canon of S.Vincent of Lerins where enquirers are bidden to “Seek the authority of the General Councils , this where such have been held.Their decisions rank first as authorised and final interpreters of Scriptures.” He then goes on,”If new questions arise on which no council has dealt then the enquirer has to collect the opinions of the (ancient) fathers who have remained in the communion of the Church, masters of repute not to indeviduals however great a Christian, but to teaching on which they all agree!”
Is this not then the Maagisterium of the Church in England! (Or the Anglican Church? Continuum)
Following the Anglican Communion is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
The 39 Articles clearly refute Calvinism as well as the errors of Romanism. I have an issue which is not an endless rehash or concerns Roman propagandists for the moment.
I would ask all of you Romanists to please spend a couple of days away from your computer and try and retrieve some one out of the one third of your communion who have left. It would be time better spent.
Jeopardy music.
Ok, I would like to address this question to any "reasserters' or other interested Anglicans of any stripe who may be reading this string.
Is it proper English to refer to women who claim to be ordained to the episcopate as Bishopettes? I am certain that this is not an accurate descriptive and defeats the intended inference.
The article states "both of them from the original vintage of priestesses of 1992."
Doesn't the suffix convey youthfulness? If this is true then I would guess the ages would have to be in excess of mid forties and therefore cannot rightly be said to be "ettes" . So the age thing does not work...
When I think of 'ettes or "eens"; I think of cheerleaders or a trio of back-up singers... you know something of the sameness, not quite yet what they will become or something on a smaller scale. Like a "cigar-ette". If "ette" means diminished but 'of the same' then we cannot use 'bishopette' because that means a small bishop but still a bishop. Are we saying the gals are small bishops or are we saying they are simply women?
A "cigarette" is a small stick of tobacco wrapped in paper rather than a tobacco leaf like a Cigar and while certainly not the same tobacco or construction as a cigar, it is tobacco.
A woman is neither male or ordained by any name even if wearing the same wrapping. And while some Bishops are certainly being tarred, chewed on and others likely to ignite and that cigar"ettes" will burn hot and fast and cause cancer they are of the same substance.
I would like to know if anyone thinks it better to refer to these women as "Bishoppers"... as in Bi-shoppers.
It 's crazy I know but I think this works better because WO is an outcropping of secular individualism and the 'market place of religion' it seems to fit the cultural background better as well as the inherent inclination of feminine habit in such a marketplace and even the general sexual preference of many of said Bi-shoppers.
I think it works with either these gals and is suitable for VGR, who may actually be a better looking June bride then either of the two aforesaid women- I can't say with certainty because I have not seen either Mz. Goldsworthy or Mz "Darling", but I have seen Mz. Jefferts Schori and Vicki Gene is definitely a better looking woman then that Bi-shop.
I think language is important and ought to be accurate. Am I on the right track here or what? Help me out! Bishopette seems problematic.
John, I have two words I commonly use for ladies who purport to be bishops, but I don't think either would have got by the censor.
Sandra,
One of them already got past the "censor," if I recall correctly, and is reminiscent of the title of a James Bond film.
To R. E. Aguirre:
Your comment is both philosophically unsound and factually wrong.
Your first point is nonsense. The 39 Articles are not Calvinism. The the Calvinists were strongly criticized, and their system rejected. In fact, Hooker summed up part of Calvin's position as "crazed." You need to consider the simple fact that overlapping of terminology is not a meeting of minds. The terminology of the Articles is not customary today, but was very much the normal terminology of Catholic scholars from Medieval times. You have stumbled into the fallacy of Nominalism.
Your second point shows that you understand neither Anglicanism nor Roman Catholicism, and that you also do not know how the term Sola Scriptura was defined back then. By the way, it is a term which comes, like it or not, from St. Thomas Aquinas, not from the Reformation(s).
Your third point is broken into parts. About Anglican Orders, we have refuted the 1896 Bull Apostoliocae Curae over and over. Nonetheless, (as we have noted many times) the 1897 response, Saepius Officio, as well as subsequent corrections by Roman scholars, has rendered all of the arguments of Apostolicae Curae "absolutely null and utterly void." Therefore, its conclusion is built on nothing that we can take seriously. It is a house of cards. You may wish to see my Saturday May 3rd, post, entitled: "To self-appointed apologists for Rome."
The rest of your third point is not relevant to us, because we are not part of the Anglican Communion, and we also reject the orders of many of their churches.
Nonetheless, your philosophical weakness is demonstrated when you you lay the blame for the heresy of women's "ordination" on the existence of Anglicanism (and subsequent heresies). Far from validating the bad arguments you put forth, the heresies of the AC must prove something else. Since you want to find a historic cause, why stop at Anglicanism? Why not blame it on an earlier foundation, namely the papal rebellion against Conciliar authority in 1054, at which time the Church of Rome left the Catholic Church and became sectarian? If you must blame the sins of the children on the fathers, then logic must take you that far back, since the 16th century problems are but a later development of the 11th century Protestant rebellion of the pope against the other patriarchs. Using your own logic, we should conclude that every problem in western Christianity validates what the Orthodox say about Rome's errors.
Then, we have a deeper problem. We have to blame all heresies on the truth. That is, we have to blame everything from the Gnostic heresies to the Arian heresy on the faithful teaching of the catholic Faith by the Apostles and the Fathers. It all validates what the Jews say.
Of course, you could simply accept the Biblical admonition against saying "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The late 20th century apostates were just that: Apostate. Every apostate rejects his own tradition first and foremost as the means of rejecting Christianity altogether. If you believe that Anglicanism made room for the heresies of modern churches, then you display ignorance about two things: 1) the very conservative tradition of Anglicanism that they rejected, and 2) the way that they rejected it. The facts show that they had to gut its teaching, rewrite its Prayer Book, and break its Canons. So, you have failed to make a good argument for your points.
And, Highchurcman has provided the balance of a good reply to you.
I'm getting a bit tired of so-called apologists who refuse to allow a conversation about issues at hand without simply charging in to say, "It doesn't matter. You guys are all wrong anyway." You seem to be doing no more than looking for excuses to condemn Anglicans and continually to hit them over the head with the same brickbats, then sarcastically calling us to leave the disorder that has beset Anglicanism in order to what? Perhaps to join in with the disorder that seems only to worsen within the Roman Communion? Why would a sane person feel that would accomplish anything?
I have no objection to RCs taking part in these discussions, and expressing views forcibly, even when I do not agree. There have been several doing just that whose presence is welcome, and indeed valued. These have been respectful of the environment, and of our intelligence, and appropriate about the place and manner of expressing specific disagreements. Those are more than welcome, and will be listened to. Who knows, they may succeed in convincing us of something, or, if not, at least in forcing us to look closely at our stands.
Others, however have added nothing but rancor to the discussions. For them, I'll repeat what John said above:
I would ask all of you Romanists to please spend a couple of days away from your computer and try and retrieve some one out of the one third of your communion who have left. It would be time better spent.
ed
Having said that:
Thank you, Sandra for a good report. Well done indeed!
I would just mention, however, that I do not think the use of feminine-ended forms is really appropriate. You see, I do not object to the creation of "deaconesses", but I have real problem with the ordination of female "deacons". The first term does not pretend to be refering to the same office as does the second. By the very token, if there were to be such an office as "priestess" I'd merely regard it as a peculiarity. The word does not have to refer to the same office as "priest" -- in fact, in the Christian East, it is common to use the feminine form of "priest" to refer to Father's wife. The same could apply, by the rules of the language, to a feminized form of "Bishop". My problem is not with women who are called "priestess" or "bishopette" or whatever, but by the purported attempt to raise women to the same office as men. That requires the use of the same term to indicate the wrongness of it. I find the easiest way to draw the distinction is to speak of female "priests" or "bishops", indicating the unreality of the situation by quotation marks. This also highlights the possibility that intention has changed and that it may not be true that, even in the ordination of men, the apostolic office is really intended.
ed
Ed,
I do not think most people will get the gist of what you are saying by using 'female bishop' etc. I actually hear people use this phrase without noticing the contradiction. They are a product of their environment of sexual confusion. For some reason it is not as obvious as saying "Mr." Jefferts Schori (ok that is not a good example) or calling somebody's father 'mom'. Although maybe we ought start doing that!
Priestess actually does seem to make an impression with Reasserters as many of them are married to such and at least know that priestesses were generally ladies of the night and or pagans in Apostolic times. They understand the significance of the term but are trapped by secularism into accepting it. Must be miserable.
I still favor Bi-shop but maybe spelled biShop?
Does that help?
Ok, I got it; when speaking of women posing as bishops we are speaking of the...
epicenopacy!!! The individual could be a Sissyish-op or Girlishop.
The Epicenopal Church! I think it has a nice ring to it!
Response to "Fr. Hart".
1. The 39 articles are clearly Protestant both in soteriology and ecclesiology. They are not and will never be, Catholic as understood by the Catholic fathers since they (and we) have rejected sola fide on principle. Apparently you are ignorant of the wide scale of Protestant scholars that have argued for the Calvinistic bent of Anglicanism, (just one example are the lectures on Christian history by the late John. H. Gerstner).
2. Sola Scriptura as formulated by Protestants is not found in the patristic attestation. St. Aquinas surely did not mean what Protestants argue but rather he understood Scripture in its proper context, namely the way it has been traditionally understood by the regula fidei, (Prima) not (sola). It is clear who is ignorant on these and related issues.
3. Apostoliocae Curae far from being null and void or somehow being downplayed by Catholic authorities has been ratified by Ratzinger in his commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, in which we Catholics must give "firm and definitve assent" to the points contained within, one of which of course was Apostoliocae Curae. The invalidation of Anglican orders is also clearly spelled out in Vatican II, but then again, no matter what evidence is given - you would disagree with.
3. I suggest you read my post again. I did not say the ordination of women is a child of the Anglican mother, but rather that Anglicanism has fallen into this modern error. You are falling into categorical fallacies here, stay focused.
My objection still stands. The Catholic fathers are ours both epistemically and theologically. Your sharp response and harsh tone reveals this desperation. Cardinal Walter Kasper has made it clear, choose history (Catholicism) or the religion of the 16th century. Our prayers are that he will reach the Anglican prelates at Lambeth with this message.
To R. E. Aguirre:
You miss the mark on all points again.
The 39 articles are clearly Protestant both in soteriology and ecclesiology.
Whatever you think that means, it does not mean the rest of what you attach to it:
They are not and will never be, Catholic as understood by the Catholic fathers since they (and we) have rejected sola fide on principle.
Actually, the Articles are based on the Catholic Fathers; and the concept of sola fide as used in the only Article that affirms it is in accord with such Fathers as Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine (one from each lung), and is itself a term also first coined by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Apparently you are ignorant of the wide scale of Protestant scholars that have argued for the Calvinistic bent of Anglicanism
No, I just find them to be as thoroughly mistaken as you are. I have said a lot about their ignorance and bumbling mistakes right here many times.
Sola Scriptura as formulated by Protestants is not found in the patristic attestation. St. Aquinas surely did not mean what Protestants argue but rather he understood Scripture in its proper context, namely the way it has been traditionally understood by the regula fidei, (Prima) not (sola). It is clear who is ignorant on these and related issues.
Really? You think that's not what the Reformers meant too? The English especally also meant sola as in prima, and that is abundantly clear, especially in the very Articles you mis-characterize so badly.it is clear in a long passage I quoted from Hooker in "No checks and balances here." The people who have been reading my articles will know easily that you have not been reading them.
Apostoliocae Curae far from being null and void or somehow being downplayed by Catholic authorities has been ratified by Ratzinger in his commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem,
It is obvious you miss the whole of
Ad Tuendam Fidem. By making a clear distinction between papal pronouncements that are to be obeyed by RCs as if they were infallible, and papal pronouncements that are absolute dogma, he mentioned this one Bull. The point was that it can be rescinded, but RCs must treat it, for now, as if it were infallible. ATF put it on the level of canonizations, which should bring to your memory that in the late 60s (or early 70s) specific canonizations were rescinded,and agin more recently with Thomas a' Kempis. AC was mentioned shortly after a comment on women's "ordination"- a rather obvious appeal to Anglicans to think more deeply.
The point was, the Bull can be rescinded (with a not so subtle hint of what really needs to happen, and whose court the ball is in).
The invalidation of Anglican orders is also clearly spelled out in Vatican II...
Actually, it's not even mentioned at all. I don't know how you get around the fact that every point made in AC has been corrected officially by Rome in separate pronouncements. They have kept a conclusion in place, but removed all the supporting arguments themselves. As I have said before, if you keep bringing that Bull up, we are embarrassed for you.
...but rather that Anglicanism has fallen into this modern error...
Some Anglicans have fallen into it. But, you have just changed your argument, and I cannot help but notice it. This point we all agree with as long as you add the word "some," and as long as you keep it in its contemporary context, instead of all that rubbish about it verifying the Roman position. What the moderns have done is no reflection on the faithful generations that they rebelled against.
The Catholic fathers are ours both epistemically and theologically.
We have done a far better job of adhering to the ancient Fathers than Rome has. And, before you list several quotations out of their historical and literary context, look at what we have already said about that here.
Cardinal Walter Kasper has made it clear, choose history (Catholicism) or the religion of the 16th century.
But, he is wrong. We choose the ancient Fathers, and thank God that much of their doctrine was restored by the people you call Protestants. We avoid the innovations of Rome and of Protestantism.
Your sharp response and harsh tone reveals this desperation.
If you pull this psychological b.s. on me again, I will reject your comment.
Our prayers are that he will reach the Anglican prelates at Lambeth with this message.
Most of the world's Anglicans will not be represented at Lambeth this time. The whole conference will be waste of time.
This is why I don't like posting on blogs. I thought perhaps here I could find some intelligent interaction (and for the most part the contributors here are worth the read).
In response to "Fr. Hart" latest post, it's really a waste of time, beating a long dead horse as it were.
I've seen his type before over the years. No matter what evidence either from the Catholic fathers or from reason, we have somehow misread our own heritage and somehow (no matter how unreasonable sounding) the fathers are quoted out of context (such as the bishop of Hippo and the bishop of Nyssa holding to sola fide) or that sola means prima, are simply too ridiculous to merit a response.
Instead of clear and cogent responses we get, "If you pull this psychological b.s. on me again, I will reject your comment".
This discussion is closed.
You cannot close a discussion on our blog.
I have published your insulting and childish comment. The fact is, you are deserting the field rather than refuting what I have said. I do not consider it honest for you to do so by pretending to have made intelligent arguments, and by pretending your withdraw is some kind of victory. You have made very silly arguments that we had already refuted many times before you wrote any of them.
I regard you as partially educated, in possession of only a very little bit of knowledge. That I don't mind.
What I do mind is the arrogant way you presented your version of "the facts." These things have been matters of very detailed debate for centuries, and so for you to come along expressing contempt with an air of authority got from me the only kind of answer I have time for- straight to the point. You rehashed the same old garbage, stuff we have dealt with extensively.
Mr Aguire,
The reason people have responded so sharply is that everything you asserted (rather than argued, since you did not provide evidence but simply claimed the 39 Articles were "clearly protestant") has been repeatedly answered with accompanying evidence, and much of it quite recently on this weblog.
If the Articles are Calvinist, why did the English Calvinists try 4 times to change them to make them match Calvinism, complaining of their inconsistency with Reformed thinking? Why did they try to do the same with the Prayer Book? Did you know this? If so, are you being intellectually dishonest? If not, why are you claiming to comment on Anglicanism when you are unaware of some basic historical facts about it relevant to your concerns?
Have you read Tavard's work Holy Writ or Holy Church or other similar RC and Anglican expositions (from the Reformation onwards) on the relationship of Scripture and Tradition, which show that the Anglican and Roman conceptions of these are not incompatible? Were you aware of the early Anglican statements, including in canon law, mandating the Scriptures be interpreted in concord with the Fathers? If so, why imply the Anglican position denies the need for Tradition-based interpretation of Scripture and imply the RCC rejects the primacy of Scripture when you know they do not? If you were unaware of these well-known facts, why should we pretend that your statements have any weight?
You are entitled to your opinion, but, please, at least read through the archives of this weblog before you comment again, so as to give new arguments or counter-arguments, rather than making a quick raid, scattering some ill-informed black-and-white statements about, and then leaving with apparent shock when you receive reples just as forthright as your original attacks upon us.
Alice, as always you are very wise. I quite agree.
You think he will take time off for a couple days and go looking for someone out of the one third of the flock that has left the Roman Church or do you think they already knew him?
I'll just comment briefly [probably behind his back, but if he's looking in, so much the better)that everyone, myself included was altogether too easy on him. A person who thinks he can charge in with off-topic condemnations in an attempt to derail the conversation going on, let alone do it with flawed reason and marred 'facts', should follow his own expressed preference and NOT post on blogs -- never, if he cannot learn to behave. When! that was strong, but entirely meant.
ed
Off track I'll say. I thought my "epicenopacy" was pretty darn funny and surely worth a couple of wise cracks.
Do you suppose these kind of apologists qualify as apologettes?
Bringing us back to the topic, folks, I have further to report. In celebration of the first purported consecrated of a female bishop in the ACA, St John's Cathedral in Brisbane (on the other side of the country) will be the site of a Eucharist a few hours before the event. It is billed in an advertisement printed in the Archbishop of Brisbane's recent Ad Clerum as 'Corpus Christi 2008--Celebrating the full humanity of Christ--Women consecrated as bishops in Australia'. Yes, I really typed that and my fingers didn't spontaneously combust. Apparently for the last 2000 years the Church has completely missed out on the full humanity of its Lord--but this is to be cured by the purported consecration of a female bishop at the ends of the Earth. The advertisement doesn't indicate whether gluten-free wafers will be available, although perhaps they'd be necessary for a fully inclusive Corpus Christi.
John,
Thanks, but no thanks on your latest attempt at humour. Please try to comment on the substance of issues.
Albion,
Sorry you don't like my humor but I thought the whole point is that there is no substance to the issue at hand. So why be so serious?
Lighten up!
John,
Humour aside, this is a matter of enormous substance.
There are people in Australia masquerading as Anglicans, pretending to "consecrate" women as bishops, thereby invalidating the sacraments and placing the salvation of all their people at risk.
If you find that a laughing matter, then I'm afraid our concepts of humour are very distinct.
Albion, in fairness to John, the tone of my article isn't entirely deadly deadpan and gallows humour has been a part of my personal armoury for dealing with the Devil for as long as I can remember. At least John's comments have been vaguely on topic.
The best of the official Canterbury Anglicans in Australia are so very Fundamentalist, Evangelical Protestant in the most modern sense, that they are not really Anglicans but in name only. That goes for Archbishop Jensen in Sydney. His support for "Lay-Presidency" cancels out his rejection of women's "ordination." It trades on negation of Holy Orders for another.
On the Feast of Corpus Christi there will be a Eucharist held in Brisbane Anglican Cathedral to honour the consecration of the Ven Kay Goldsworthy in Perth AND TO CELEBRATE THE FULL HUMANITY OF CHRIST!
So this event will not only breach Catholic Order it will clearly rectify the incompleteness of Christ's humanity which the mistaken orthodox believed to be already complete.
My dear BISHOP LORD ALBION THE LACHRYMOSE OF WITHERING GLANCE
While we cannot totally divorce the issue of the cure of souls from these women coveting that which does not belong to them you cannot ignore that each of these provinces enters into the fraud by a democratic system. The people place themselves at risk in supporting the novelty. I did not do that, none of you did it. It is a willful and collective decision of the majority.
The objecting minority, assuming one is left, has the obligation to leave.
The second issue is these women are individuals, nonconformists and now public figures. My making light of them has little to do with the people they defraud, especially if as I say they do so willfully.
Since 1979 the orthodox have pointed to tradition and scripture and these people willfully ignore it. So that has not worked. Since they be public figures they are fair game. If you choose to be serious about their situation then you are inferring it is worth being serious.
My point here is that it is not worth seriousness because it is not real. The people that will be led down the wrong path are a separate issue, but again if they go willingly then how is humor aggravating the situation?
I think humor may be a way of inviting inquirey- if it can be mocked what is the reason? Maybe someone will look into it and become enlightened.
Fair is fair. These "ordinations" are in themselves a mockery. Is it only allowable that the heretics get to make a joke out of the Faith once delivered and be exempt from any ridicule?
Why lend credibility to their cause by getting worked up over it?
The lack of shame in society is part to blame but most people still understand that to be laughed at certainly undermines any position they have that invites laughter.
BISHOP LORD ALBION THE LACHRYMOSE OF WITHERING GLANCE ? Come on I know you have a sense of humor in there some where.
Sandra, thanks but I think I am spot on topic just in a round about way.
John,
Let it alone, huh?
I've told lots of jokes and had them fall flat. I never once got mad because people didn't understand what I was saying -- that would be to take myself and my own humor altogether too seriously. If an attempt at humor doesn't work and ruffles someone's feathers the only decent response is to back away. I've got lots of egg on my face. Some of it my own fault entirely, some of it, well ... I don't think it was my fault. I wipe it off and go about my business.
ed
Ed,
Who is mad??? About what???
Why is it every time you don't agree with something you judge and or paint some one to be angry?
Post a Comment