tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post4372041042718719394..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Following the DevilFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85640395243399130132008-09-01T19:24:00.000-04:002008-09-01T19:24:00.000-04:00Although "ACC Member" did not mention me by name, ...Although "ACC Member" did not mention me by name, I was the culprit in introducing the word "ilk" which s/he finds so deplorable.<BR/><BR/>In the boarding house where I took meals in my undergraduate days, I recall someone remarking on someone else's faux pas with the remark, "Now what would Emily Post say about that." Someone else shot back, "Since Emily is a well bred person, she would not say anything whatever." <BR/><BR/>In the radio talk shows I listen to as I drive around, I have noticed a certain type of caller who predictably begins, "I am a conservative but...." This is always a tip-off that some far-left type is calling in to make trouble. Yes, I know this ilk very well.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15098772887926956712008-09-01T17:36:00.000-04:002008-09-01T17:36:00.000-04:00They never used words like "ilk" to describe other...<I>They never used words like "ilk" to describe other Christians, for example, or say that other clergy or denominations were doing the work of the Devil.</I><BR/><BR/>"Ilk" simply means "like" and was used mainly in Scotland for families that owned land. To say that various different groups are of a like mind is hardly derogatory. <BR/><BR/>However, the second point runs counter to scripture. Again, to quote another rude man, the Apostle Paul, writing by Divine Inspiriation: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." II Cor.11:13-15<BR/><BR/>About Matt Kennedy and his kind (is that better than "ilk"?), I do not question their sincerity, only their judgment. If I did not believe that they have persuaded themselves and each other that they are truly serving God, I would waste no time disputing details (and no doubt, to some degree they do serve God, And, Since I have described to the point of redundancy the meaning of my illustration, I expect no more seemingly willful attempts to distort it.)<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, should we never speak of anyone the way St. Paul spoke of the Judaizers (or whichever heretics he was taking on) as some sort of principle? I prefer to treat St.Paul, other Apostles whose words are written, and our Lord Jesus, as examples of truly godly speech.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2651390018657624622008-08-31T21:15:00.000-04:002008-08-31T21:15:00.000-04:00We have far too much love in our hearts to become ...<I>We have far too much love in our hearts to become nice guys</I><BR/><BR/>Nice Phrase, Fr, Hart. <BR/><BR/>If I'm about to take an accidental plummet off a cliff, which would be the most loving thing to say to me:<BR/><BR/>"Have you considered all the implications of your current course of action? Might it not be time to give it some thought? It's your decision, however."<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>"GET AWAY FROM THE EDGE YOU BLOOMING IDIOT!"<BR/><BR/>Somehow I think the latter is more helpful, more caring, and thus more loving. I could be wrong, but it seems that sometimes the direct and abrasive way is the one that willmsave lives, or souls.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26570016762681611572008-08-31T18:56:00.000-04:002008-08-31T18:56:00.000-04:00The point was to say that their doctrine fails the...The point was to say that their doctrine fails the test of orthodoxy. Since we are surrounded by Anglicans who succumb to the temptation of relative "orthodoxy" it is best to say so directly. I could have been very rude indeed, like St.Paul: "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings..." (I Tim 6: 3,4). In fact, I could have quoted that most rude and discourteous of men, whose words made even the prophets look polite, namely Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>The analogy in my title to the post works. To react always to the latest heresy, rather than having a foundation of apostolic teaching that never becomes relative in application, is to allow the enemy to lead the way. Following from a distance, even if under protest, is just another way to bring up the rear. <BR/><BR/>I prefer our way, imperfect though we most certainly are. In the Affirmation of St.Louis we declared where TEC had broken communion with us, and so no matter how much they continue along their evil road, we are true to what has been believed everywhere, always and by all, rather than confusing a mere dislike for homosexuality with the fullness of orthodoxy. <BR/><BR/>So, ACC member, I hope you keep reading; but, you may as well accept this fact (and meditate upon it first): We have far too much love in our hearts to become nice guys.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50542388509487838792008-08-30T22:02:00.000-04:002008-08-30T22:02:00.000-04:00Poetreader:I believe the truth can be said kindly....Poetreader:<BR/><BR/>I believe the truth can be said kindly. I grew up in a parish that preached the orthodox catholic faith in its Anglican tradition, but never once did the clergy ever say anything unkind about any other church. Never did they say anything unkind about another cleryperson in our town, on television, or otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Never once did our clergy condemn other denominations, or other Christian traditions. <BR/><BR/>The clergy I grew up with were well-educated, and had enough good manners to preach the truth without having to attack other denominations, clergy, etc. They simply taught us the truth from the Holy Scriptures and the Cathechism, pure and simple.<BR/><BR/>They never used words like "ilk" to describe other Christians, for example, or say that other clergy or denominations were doing the work of the Devil.<BR/><BR/>They simply preached the truth, and applied it to how we should live our lives. They did not have to use others as wrong examples. They simply taught us the right examples.<BR/><BR/>We have a true and orthodox, time-tested faith given to us by Christ and the Holy Apostles. What we should be doing is teaching that faith to our people, and teaching that faith to the millions of lost souls who need Christ and that faith in their lives. We don't need to throw stones at other clergy and other denominations to teach the faith. We can teach it with kindness and love. If we teach it with kindness and love, I have no doubt our church buildings would have more people in the pews.<BR/><BR/>"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."<BR/><BR/>ACC MemberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55514793973394518052008-08-30T18:52:00.000-04:002008-08-30T18:52:00.000-04:00"ACC member"You've told us what we shouldn't say b..."ACC member"<BR/><BR/>You've told us what we shouldn't say because of your concept of good manners. I believe in good manners too. In fact I've been criticized for being too forward in demanding good manners. <BR/><BR/>That being said, tell us how we should have said what needed to be said about the deep seriousness and very real danger in the kind of stance taken by SFIF. It's not that Fr. Kennedy "happens" to be Protestant, as if that were some kind of unavoidable genetic disease, but that he and his ilk have inavertently given aid and comfort to serious evil by tolerating it and remaining in communion with it for so long. We observe that they indeed seem to have absorbed an uncomfortably large amount of the errant thinking and practice of that environment.<BR/><BR/>Are we simply to avoid unpleasant truth we believe we see? Or are we to veil it in sugary language that won't express the enormity of it? If you don't like how it was said here, please advise us on effective ways that it could have been said.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, a major purpose of theological debate is to distinguish truth from error. To accuse someone of error (if one is right in one's accusation) is to elicit one of two responses: either a change of mind (repentance), or an open denial of truth, and therefore open exposure of the true stsate of affairs. It's our Lord who said his words would turn father against son, etc.<BR/><BR/>You've told us what not to say. What then shall we say if we are not to yield to untruth?<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54849332325474167142008-08-30T16:06:00.000-04:002008-08-30T16:06:00.000-04:00You can be sure that such words cut very deep into...<I>You can be sure that such words cut very deep into the souls of Father Kennedy and others.</I><BR/><BR/>I am sorry to say, that is apparently true. Any well-worded disagreement on SFIF hurts their feelings so badly that the comment gets deleted, and the commenter finds out later (than everyone else) that he has been banned. <BR/><BR/>However, Matt Kennedy may comment here, and never be banned.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33810088415420299852008-08-30T14:13:00.000-04:002008-08-30T14:13:00.000-04:00I have no doubt that Fr. Hart meant to say somethi...I have no doubt that Fr. Hart meant to say something that was not intended to cause harm, as I pointed out earlier.<BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that it is possible to preach and write the truth in love and kindness, and with the manners that my mother, and hopefully everyone's mother, taught them to use when speaking or writing to others.<BR/><BR/>I am all for proclaiming the truth that we believe honestly.<BR/><BR/>But if it is attempted in a way that is unkind, insulting, or stirs up feelings of hurt in those it is intended to help, it will do no good. People simply shut down and don't read, or don't listen to, dialogue that hurts their feelings.<BR/><BR/>I am simply suggesting that kindness goes a long way.<BR/><BR/>I am not a Calvinist, and I don't agree with Calvinism. That aside, I still respect Father Matt Kennedy as a fellow Christian. There is much that Father Matt says with which I do agree. Obviously there is much he says with which I do not agree, but I always treat him with respect and kindness. He is due with being treated that simply because he is a human being; even more so, because he is a fellow Christian.<BR/><BR/>If, as Christians, we are respectful and show hospitality and kindness, we will do more good than if we say things that hurt feelings.<BR/><BR/>I think its fine that commentators here speak what they believe to be the truth. What would it hurt to be kind while doing that? In my opinion, it would turn this blog into a good outreach tool for the Continuum if opinions were voiced with greater sensibility to kindness. As it is, I fear reading this Blog would scare many people away from even giving the Continuum a try.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to ban me for speaking what I believe to be truth in Christian love, feel free to do so.<BR/>But I cannot remain silent when I see people using words as a way of hurting one another.<BR/><BR/>You can be sure that such words cut very deep into the souls of Father Kennedy and others.<BR/><BR/>ACC MemberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7403362010656895222008-08-30T12:46:00.000-04:002008-08-30T12:46:00.000-04:00Dear ACC Member,As owner of this blog, I am respon...Dear ACC Member,<BR/><BR/>As owner of this blog, I am responding to your latest comment, which was directed to Fr Wells. I would like to try to make a number of points.<BR/><BR/>First of all, The Continuum, is not in any way, shape or form, an organ of the Anglican Catholic Church. I created it when I was nominally a member of the ACA, though I joined the ACC two years ago. I specifically structured The Continuum so that my co-hosts would represent as broad a cross-section of the continuing movement as possible. Fr Hart was, at the time, APCK, while Fr Kirby was and still is ACC, and Ed Pacht ACA. I also tried, without success, to get someone from the APA on board.<BR/><BR/>I will not speak for Fr Wells, as he is more than capable of representing himself. Suffice it to sayt that he, like you, is a reader of, and commenter on, this blog. He is not a co-host, and nothing that he says necessarily represents the editorial stance thereof. <BR/><BR/>That said, Fr Wells more often than not speaks as if with one voice with us. True, he may often be less than gentle in his language, but we do encourage robust dialogue here. There is too much political correctness and self-censorship in this world, and that is something we want no part of here.<BR/><BR/>You have taken this blog to task by suggesting that the message read here is one of "we are right and everyone else is wrong." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, one of the fundamental purposes for this blog´s continuing existence is to encourage and foster closer relations among the various legitimate continuing jurisdictions, as well as with Rome and Orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>As for your comment about there being a sense of superiority here, I would also suggest you are wrong. Be careful not to confuse feeling superior with our strong commitment to what we believe as catholic Christians and our determination to defend it against all assaults. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are a relatively new reader. Have a look at the index of topics that we have dealt with over the years and read up on those that might be of particular interest to you. I think you will find yourself pleasantly suprised.<BR/><BR/>Also, go back and re-read this very thread. It was not meant to imply that Protestants, in general, or certain Anglo-Calvinists, in particular, are devil worshippers, but that they are unwittingly doing the devil´s work for him. A very big difference, my friend.<BR/><BR/>Peace be with you.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16422027796560706522008-08-30T08:45:00.000-04:002008-08-30T08:45:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart:I find you to be a very knowledgable theo...Fr. Hart:<BR/><BR/>I find you to be a very knowledgable theologian and an excellent writer. I also sincerely believe you are well-intentioned.<BR/><BR/>That said, if you believe calling fellow Christians, who happen to be Protestant instead of Catholic,<BR/>"followers of the Devil" isn't uncharitable; I would truly challenge you to pray about that. I urge you to consider St. Benedict's teaching concerning hospitality to visitors and guests from outside of a Christian community; and the importance of hospitality and charity in converting souls to Christ.<BR/><BR/>The old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar" definately apllies here. Your language will repulse Protestant Anglicans, not cause them to reconsider.<BR/><BR/>This sort of dialog gives the Continuum a bad reputation. It makes us appear to be a cult, which we are not. One of the chief indicators of a cult is a religious group that says: "We are right and everyone else is wrong."<BR/>If I had read this blog before I joined the ACC, it would have scared me off and I would never have joined the ACC.<BR/><BR/>This attitude of superiority, and that "we are right and everyone else is wrong" probably scares many people away from the Continuum.<BR/><BR/>ACC MemberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5024326286245693452008-08-30T04:48:00.000-04:002008-08-30T04:48:00.000-04:00A correction to my note of 10.19 pm yesterday, in ...A correction to my note of 10.19 pm yesterday, in which I mistakenly directed myself to Ed Pacht. I had meant to address John.<BR/><BR/>My apologies, Ed.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63422041663747644462008-08-30T00:07:00.000-04:002008-08-30T00:07:00.000-04:00Fr. S.J>Homosexual practice is a sin. Rewriting...Fr. S.J><BR/><BR/>Homosexual practice is a sin. Rewriting God's commandments in order to "bless" same-sex unions, and allow immorality to be practiced without church discipline, is a heresy.<BR/><BR/>ACC member:<BR/><BR/>Making a strong case is not uncharitable, especially if it is done for the pastoral reason of keeping the lines clear for our own people, and in hopes of getting some of the other people to rethink their position. I do not know that we cannot convince them.<BR/><BR/><I>Since the days of the Elizabethan Settlement, Protestant and Catholic Anglicans have been at odds, and it has been a shaky, uneasy alliance</I><BR/><BR/>Yes and no. Except for very extreme partisan elements, most Anglicans always considered themselves both Catholic and Reformed (not "Reformed" in the Calvinist sense). By the early 20th century, the ideal clergyman was described with the cliche, "not too high, not too low." Even the Anglican Evangelicals had confessors and considered themselves catholic- except, I say, among the sort of partisans that C.S.Lewis mentioned in <I>The Screwtape Letters</I>.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24360128943333955732008-08-29T21:44:00.000-04:002008-08-29T21:44:00.000-04:00Father Matt Kennedy will plainly, and proudly, say...Father Matt Kennedy will plainly, and proudly, say that he is a Calvinist. There is no doubt that most of those leaving TEC at present are Protestant Anglicans. That is essentially a given. It is no secret that GAFCON, CCP, etc. are from the Protestant type of Anglicanism.<BR/><BR/>Since the days of the Elizabethan Settlement, Protestant and Catholic Anglicans have been at odds, and it has been a shaky, uneasy alliance.<BR/><BR/>The true Catholic Anglicans left ECUSA at the time of The Affirmation of St. Louis. The Protestants are leaving TEC (ECUSA) now, for different reasons.<BR/><BR/>Why must they condemn us, or we condemn them? To do so, shows a total lack of Christian charity. Christ would be ashamed.<BR/><BR/>We will not convince them to change to our beliefs, neither will they convince us to change to their beliefs.<BR/><BR/>It is pointless and tacky to throw rocks at each other. Why not just treat them with kindness and Christian charity, understand that they are from a different type of Anglicanism, and let us try to reach the young people of today for traditional, classic Anglicanism in its Catholic expression.<BR/><BR/>The Anicient-Future trends among youth, would make the Continuum very attractive to youth if we would only allow them to know we exist.<BR/><BR/>ACC MemberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49585099768564840552008-08-29T21:21:00.000-04:002008-08-29T21:21:00.000-04:00To return to the more edifying discussion of when ...To return to the more edifying discussion of when TEC became heretical, I left TEC (PECUSA) in 1970 because of its refusal to discipline Bishop Pike and his blatant heresies. I suspect in fact that it had gone off the rails earlier, but this was what brought it home to me. I read St. John's words: "If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not admit him to your house or give him any greeting, for he who greets him becomes his accomplice in his evil deeds" (II John 10-11). How could I receive Communion with those who tolerated this false teaching, if the Apostle says not even to greet them! That was it for me.<BR/><BR/>I'm puzzled that there is not more attention paid to TEC's intercommunion with the ELCA, not all of whose clergymen have episcopal ordination; and the ELCA has a sharing of ministry relationship with some Reformed churches, if I am not mistaken. That is a further departure from Apostolic Succession, although the women "priests" and "bishops" pretty well took care of that.<BR/><BR/>Finally, homosexuality is a sin, not a heresy. To break communion over a sin, after tolerating heresies of all sorts, is completely unbalanced. This brings all the protests into disrepute, since the "make-or-break" issue is not one of faith, but of morals. Of course, the ordination of a public homosexual is wrong, but it is not a heresy. There is plenty of heresy in TEC, but those who stayed in TEC have gradually swallowed it. But how sad that they finally have had enough over this issue, while ignoring the destruction of their ministry and the shredding of their faith and teaching.<BR/><BR/>Fr. S.J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2930746820592129542008-08-29T15:19:00.000-04:002008-08-29T15:19:00.000-04:00Fr Hart has already said it in an uncustomarily di...Fr Hart has already said it in an uncustomarily diplomatic fashion; I will say it bluntly: I do not want to see anything further on this thread about the number of members the TAC might or might not have; the subject has been beaten to death. You are all forewarned.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, a comment to Ed: This blog is not a newspaper, though it does contain news. And commenters on threads published by myself and my co-hosts are not meant to be journalists. This is a place where anyone can have his say, as long as it is within the bounds of civility. If what he says turns out to make him a fool, that is his problem, not one for The Continuum.<BR/><BR/>Fathers Hart and Kirby, Ed Pacht and myself are always keen to ensure as much precision and factual correctness in what we post, but commenters have a much freer rein.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21628872800407713852008-08-29T13:35:00.000-04:002008-08-29T13:35:00.000-04:00I am going toask that we now return to the subject...I am going toask that we now return to the subject of the thread itself. Nevin's comments have been relevant, and I applaud that even though I find that I am debating those comments.<BR/><BR/>John wrote to me:<BR/><I>you are a fine journalist yourself</I><BR/><BR/>Don't start calling me names. What have I ever done to you?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63555900831844617262008-08-29T12:02:00.000-04:002008-08-29T12:02:00.000-04:00Ed,Funny remark considering the renewed attack and...Ed,<BR/><BR/>Funny remark considering the renewed attack and continued twisting by LKW.<BR/><BR/>Fr Wells I have claimed nothing, you like putting words in peoples mouths - helps you make your argument-it is you that make claims I have only pointed to the TAC claim on it's official website which if you noted is dated 2006. Not my claim not my burden to prove or disprove, that belongs to you and you have never gotten past your allegation.<BR/><BR/>Your insistence on that one man's alleged opinion represents official numbers is laughable.<BR/><BR/>Where is the journalistic standard of the '2nd source' to back up the claims?<BR/><BR/>Ed - I suppose you are giving LKW the same advise or do you have a double standard?John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08740471734843352544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35324909647620150002008-08-29T10:54:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:54:00.000-04:00John,Let go. Fr. Wells my be overstating sometime...John,<BR/>Let go. Fr. Wells my be overstating sometimes (which could be debated) and he may be a bit stronger in his wording than I'd prefer, but he is addressing issues and actions. You, on the other hand have developed a fixation of attacking one particular commenter. May I remind you that this is not a forum about Fr. Laurence Wells?, nor is it a forum about this mysterious John speaking from anonymity. Let it go. Ultimately it makes little difference whther LKW has said something than whether it is true. And one thing that is true is that statistics differed have indeed been wildly various, and that questionalbe estimates have indeed been used as "evoidence". Whoever does that ought to be shown to be doing that.<BR/><BR/>If you will return to discussing issues, even in ways some of us may dislike, and leave off personal attacks, you are welcome here. If not . . .<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9771254700115078652008-08-29T09:15:00.000-04:002008-08-29T09:15:00.000-04:00"John" writes:"the fact that Rome sees the 400-500..."John" writes:<BR/><BR/>"the fact that Rome sees the 400-500k as verifiable?"<BR/><BR/>TAC seems to use numbers in a very elastic way. The TAC website claims 400,000 adherents. "John" stretches this to "400-500K" So John seems to make 100,000 people appear out of nowhere. John writes further:<BR/><BR/>"Rome may be a lot of things but they do have quite an institution and they do know how to bean count."<BR/><BR/>John, Roman experts readily acknowledge that their membership figures are at best just estimates.<BR/>"All known baptized minus all known dead" is one common cliche.<BR/>With a huge membership, that's the best that can be done.<BR/><BR/>".... I think most reasonable people will attribute the ability to accurately verify numbers to Rome rather than to you."<BR/><BR/>So are you claiming that Rome has actually verified TAC's numbers?<BR/>In spite of your snide remark, I do not claim to have verified anything. I have only asked how TAC has arrived at "400,000 members on 6 continents," which some stretch to 700,000, and you stretch to 500,000. Some bean counting!<BR/><BR/>I note the claim 400,000 members on 6 continents implies 66,666.666 per continent. Now how many continents have that many TAC members? Inquiring minds wish to know.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22862644594609075162008-08-29T08:41:00.000-04:002008-08-29T08:41:00.000-04:00Nevin observes:"LKW has flippantly decided TEC bec...Nevin observes:<BR/>"LKW has flippantly decided TEC became heretical in 1899."<BR/><BR/>No, Nevin, I was not being flippant.<BR/>Abandoning the view of Scripture which was universal in the Church from Patristic times (See JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines) was as serious a matter as embracing the Arian heresy. <BR/><BR/>Matt Kennedy claims to hold a high view of Scripture. His statement that TEC was orthodox until 2003 disproves this.<BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58483082358245659262008-08-29T01:41:00.000-04:002008-08-29T01:41:00.000-04:00Fr Hart,At best the 700k comment came from an indi...Fr Hart,<BR/><BR/>At best the 700k comment came from an individual. And was repeated by an Episcopalian and then Fr Wells. And Fr Wells is purposed to provoke. You think that is worth a pass- it's your blog.<BR/><BR/>Albion has listed his journalistic credentials here and you are a fine journalist yourself. Since when does rumor or an assertion based on an unauthorized single source justify your agreement? The TAC website says 400k unless any of you has proof otherwise you ought to stop insisting the 700k is an official statistic. If you have something to the contrary please by all means do a story on it.<BR/><BR/>If every off hand comment by any clergy or layman is to become an official news release for their particular jurisdiction we are all in a lot of trouble and you folks need to start 'staffing up'.<BR/><BR/>LKW may be a lot of things, some positive, but one of those things is rumor mongering and a consistent desire to inflict insult. Intention is everything in Anglo Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>Well it's the ACC's credibility at stake.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08740471734843352544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5578755746934719542008-08-29T01:34:00.000-04:002008-08-29T01:34:00.000-04:00JohnEd was not inconsistent. He did not reject you...John<BR/><BR/>Ed was not inconsistent. He did not reject your comment either, as he said. The 700,000 figure came ultimately from a TAC source, even though it was not ++Hepworth. Well, that happens. People let their excitement run away with them.<BR/><BR/>I have already explained (in the above comment) where Nevin's comment is wrong, so if you give him a cigar I can't agree with you either. Right now the main bodies that have the Chambers-Pagtakahn succession are more unified than ever.<BR/><BR/>After my conversation with the Archbishop of the TAC, I know that he is so oriented towards Rome that any effort to seek unity with the rest of the Continuing Churches is not his top priority. Unity for him means reunification with Rome, not with the ACC-APCK-UEC, even though in 2005 he was ready to join in and hand it all over to Archbishop Morse.<BR/><BR/>At this time I hope he will reconsider just how much unity in the Continuum is preferable.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39294472783465397112008-08-29T01:18:00.000-04:002008-08-29T01:18:00.000-04:00...that has allowed the "institutional fragmentati...<I>...that has allowed the "institutional fragmentation of the continuing church into countless tiny schismatic churches...</I><BR/><BR/>The Continuing Church jurisdictions are listed to the right on the main page of this blog. Three of them are in accord to the point where I am about to report a story of an ACC bishop ordaining a deacon on behalf of the Archbishop of the UEC, at his request (just waiting for the details). Other than that, the TAC is looking more to be in some sort of relationship with Rome which makes it hard for me to tell whether they see unity in the CCs as a priority (a simple fact that I cannot help but observe), and the APA predates the Continuing Churches by almost a decade. The last of the ARSA (ARJA) dioceses is what remains of a jurisdiction that also predates the Continuing Church (etc.), but along with the APA has adopted the Affirmation of St. Louis. The alleged "countless" fragments consist of <I>episcopus vagens</I> and imitators who are merely doing what freedom of religion allows. Recent years have seen growth of unity among the Continuing jurisdictions, not growth of discord. The ACC-APCK-UEC accord cannot be called fragmentation.<BR/><BR/>Nevin, bad blood is not the issue, at least not with me. The issue is theological and spiritual. I regard the SFIF version of Christianity as a modern invention that has no real claim to anything substantial. It is based on having been so far from the center for so long, that anything less heinous than the most extreme examples of TEC error looks orthodox by comparison. And, that is the problem, comparative orthodoxy rather than simple orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>I hope they will be horrified to have me say they are following the Devil by letting him lead the way. I hope they will be so horrified that it shocks them into reality.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-60119732905490978722008-08-29T01:10:00.000-04:002008-08-29T01:10:00.000-04:00Nevin,You win the cigar.I joined the CC five years...Nevin,<BR/><BR/>You win the cigar.<BR/><BR/>I joined the CC five years ago and it is plainly evident that there will be no unity in the Continuum. As I said in an earlier post there is a reason God keeps a tribe in the wilderness for 40 years.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps after a lot of old bitter men go to their reward the Continuum will mature enough to have a common witness.<BR/><BR/>You GaffeConners may be Presbyterians but at least your all on the same side. I admire that.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08740471734843352544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11185228077625943582008-08-29T00:57:00.000-04:002008-08-29T00:57:00.000-04:00No, it states the fact that he can tolerate them. ...<I> No, it states the fact that he can tolerate them. Even so, it is not to his credit that he tolerated them simply because he was able to do so under protest.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Well, I disagree. I think it is to his credit that he was one of the leading voices in opposition to the direction of TEC. And he left TEC almost a year ago. Why bring this up now? It's like you can't be happy he left TEC.<BR/><BR/><I>However, it is that very point that is intellectually, theologically and spiritually weak.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I guess you have a right to that opinion, but there are still a lot (ever dwindling I admit) of people in TEC that I wouldn't describe in such dismal terms. But I'm not sure it is so easy to decide exactly when a church becomes heretical. LKW has flippantly decided TEC became heretical in 1899. I guess that makes several generations of Episcopalians followers of the Devil and "intellectually, theologically and spiritually weak…”<BR/><BR/>Ultimately I was just upset to see this very unnecessary attack in the language employed. I will accept being wrong in accusing the Continuum of saying Matt Kennedy is not a Christian, but I think I was confused when the feature article claimed that the "Gafconites" have devised a way to follow the Devil and are good followers of Satan. LKW thinks the folks at Stand Firm are wolves in sheep’s clothing and worse than heretics. Canon Tallis prays for their conversion. This language seems quite judgmental. I've said it before and I'll say it again- in general I love this blog and continue to find much of value in it. Maybe I just need to avoid reading anything addressing the topic of Kennedy and Stand Firm as I know there is a lot of bad blood there.<BR/><BR/>Finally, watching this thread degenerate into a p***ing contest is perhaps instructive of the mindset that has allowed the "institutional fragmentation of the continuing church into countless tiny schismatic churches". God bless Canon Tallis for recognizing that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com