The Papal Claims examined

By now it should be clear, even it loses me some friends, that my conscience will not allow me to stand by quietly and see Anglicans intimidated by those who claim we have anything less than a full and complete Catholic heritage, both in theology and valid sacraments. We are no less the Church than the Orthodox and Roman communions. The late Fr. Louis Tarsitano once stated that "the only reason to be Anglican is to avoid the innovations both of Protestantism and of Rome." With that I whole heartedly agree. People who write of the Via Media as some sort of flawed theory, as if it were something that does not actually exist, look rather silly to those of us who consciously walk it (for, I know most certainly, there is ground beneath my feet).

This reminds me that the Orthodox Church regard the Roman Catholic Church as the first and largest Protestant denomination. From their perspective it has certainly erred into creating a few innovations no less than the Calvinists and Lutherans. These are matters, of course, debatable among Christians; and we expect that such debate will continue, and we know that it can and should be motivated on all sides by charity. Even when, lamentably, it isn't, the debate goes on.

The following was posted by An Anglican Cleric on the Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud. A few of the details are overstated, including the charge that Roman Catholics regard the Pope as Head of the Church instead of Universal Primate and Vicar of Christ. Indeed, they too recognize the Lord Jesus Christ alone as Head of the Body. And, I have no doubt that a learned man, such as Dr. William Tighe for example, can find fault with even more fine points in the essay. Nonetheless, I am posting this here anyway, because some of the claims made by Roman Catholics reveal an approach to history that forces it to fit a dogmatic theological scheme, which often creates an awkward and unrealistic analysis of real events. History is not doctrine, but the record of facts. Our problem with some Roman Catholics is that when we defend our own Church, and state facts of history, they take that defense as an attack on their beliefs.

The problem I want to address, without causing offense to our Roman Catholic brethren (and we want to avoid being anti-[Roman] Catholic), is that too many Anglicans swallow anti-Anglicanism whole (and yet they remain Anglicans). Usually, it is evident that these people have no appreciation for the Anglican reformers and divines, no appreciation for the history of the Church, misread Anglican formularies by interpreting them (especially the Articles) with no grasp of the times in which they were written and of the English language of that era. The result is that they buy the criticism heaped on our heritage by modern Roman Catholic apologists, uncritically. This is why I have written about a school of Anglo-Papalists who have an inferiority complex concerning Rome. This is why I have been quoting long passages of Richard Hooker (as a start). And, when I read troubling remarks by the Archbishop of the TAC about "the mistakes of the last five hundred years," I am alarmed at the possibility that his words might represent an overwhelmingly negative appraisal of Anglicanism itself (we readily welcome, indeed request, clarification). However, since that rather large jurisdiction still names itself "Anglican," I take it that we may be given some reassuring explanation about what mistakes are seen to have been made, and by whom.

The first paragraph of what follows is rather strong, and comes across as a prosecutor's opening remarks. I did not write this, however, but merely offer it as a good counter balance to a lot of misinformation, and as containing things worthy of discussion.

The Papal Claims Examined
from Catholic Principles
by
The Revd Frank N. Westcott

It is a sad and most unfortunate fact, yet one which is easily capable of demonstration by any competent historian, that all along the ages, Rome’s interests have been advanced by forgeries and falsification of the Fathers; and that such interpolations are quoted with approval today, in Roman controversial books; and that it is not safe to accept patristic quotations in such books, without verifying them at first hand.

There are plenty of historic facts which are utterly inconsistent with the assumption that the supreme judicial and spiritual authority of the Church, has always been in the hands of the Bishops of Rome. For example: the first difficulty which required judicial action in the Apostolic Church, was settled by a council of the whole Church at Jerusalem, under the presidency, not of St. Peter, but of St. James, who pronounced sentence in his own name, without any regard to St. Peter.

When Victor, Bishop of Rome, AD 196, undertook to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches, because they disagreed with him about the time of the observance of Easter, he was rebuked by the other Bishops, including Irenaeus, and his excommunication was ignored, and had no effect whatever.

In the fourth century, the Council of Sardica allowed a condemned Bishop to appeal to Rome for a new trial, not as a recognized right, but as conferring a privilege. This canon of Sardica, was misquoted by the Bishops of Rome as being a canon of the Council of Nice in a controversy with the African Bishops. But the latter consulted the Eastern Patriarchs, and, so discovering the misquotation, replied to the Patriarch of Rome through his legates, “We find it enacted in no council of the Fathers, that any person may be sent as legates of your holiness . . . . Do not therefore at the request of any, send your clergy as agents for you, lest we seem to introduce into the Church of Christ, the ambitious pride of the world.”

The great Arian heresy which denied the divinity of our Lord, was settled by the Nicene Council, which was called, not by the Pope, but by the Emperor Constantine. Hosius presided, and the heresy was finally refuted, not through the pronouncement of the Pope, but through the argument of Athanasius; while Pope Liberius himself became a heretic.

Then the heresy denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost, was settled at the Council of Constantinople in 381, at which the Nicene Creed was reaffirmed, and the sentences defining doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost added, and the Roman Bishop was not present either in person or through his legates. Meletius of Antioch presided at the council, and was succeeded by Gregory Nazianzen, Patriarch of Constantinople; and so in the settlement of the two greatest heresies, the authority of the Bishop of Rome counted for little or nothing; and it is interesting to note that the Bishops assembled in council at Constantinople in 381, in their Epistle to the Western Bishops assembled at Rome, called the Church of Jerusalem the “Mother of all Churches.”

Of course the most complete refutation of the Roman claim of supremacy has been the historic position of the four patriarchates of the Eastern Church, which have never acknowledged the claims of such universal jurisdiction, and yet were in communion with the patriarch of Rome until the twelfth century.

The claims of supreme and spiritual jurisdiction over the whole Church, on the part of the Bishop of Rome, cannot stand the test of catholicity, and so become articles of faith, unless they have been acknowledged always, everywhere, and by all Catholics; and this we have shown to be historically incredible.

Roman Catholics are very fond of asserting that a visible Church must have a visible head; and that as there is no other Bishop who claims to be the head of the Church but the Pope of Rome, therefore he must be that head. We reply, that in the Holy Scriptures St. Paul asserts that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church; and he nowhere recognizes any other head; though he constantly insists on the visible, organic nature of the Church itself. St. Augustine asserts the same fact, thus: “Since the whole Christ is made up of the head and the body, the head is our Saviour Himself, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, who now, after He has risen from the dead, sits at the right hand of God; but His body is the Church; not this Church, or that, but the Church scattered over all the world . . . . For the whole Church, made up of all the faithful, because all the faithful are members of Christ, has its head situate in the heavens which governs this body: though it is separated from their sight, yet it is bound to them by love.” Then again, it must be remembered that the greater part of the Catholic Church is made up of souls in Paradise, and therefore is not visible to us; and Christ is the Head of the Church to them, as well as to us. To them He may be visible.

But supposing the visible Church must have a visible head: we reply, as a practical matter of fact, the universal episcopate assembled in general council was from the first regarded as the head of the Church; the ultimate source and seat of authority, to which the Bishop of Rome himself was always subject: as is proved by the fact, that the universal episcopate settled heresies, defined the Faith, and deposed Popes who were themselves heretics, and excommunicated them. Gregory the Great, as we have seen, expressly repudiated the title of "universal Bishop” which he most certainly would not have done, if he had considered himself the “head of the Church,” in the modern Roman sense.

It makes a neat turn of an argument to say that the visible Church must have a visible head; and then to set forth the Pope as that head; but after all, it is merely a question of historic fact, and history points to the universal Episcopate as the head, and not to the Pope of Rome. If the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church, then when the Pope dies, apparently the Church has no head, and remains a headless monster, perhaps for several months, until another Pope is elected and enthroned. Surely this is a curious condition of things, that the Church should be continually sloughing off its head, and growing another, every generation or so; so that every little while it has no head at all. The collective episcopate does not die; but lives on from age to age, and as the head of the Church, is abiding and permanent.

The whole growth of the papal claims may be summarized by four words: Primacy, Supremacy, Sovereignty, and Infallibility. The Primacy of Rome, Anglicans admit to be lawful; not as of divine appointment, but as a matter of precedence and executive convenience, originating from the prominence of the Imperial city. The Supremacy of Rome, Anglicans reject, as disturbing the original balance of power defined by the general councils and canon law of the Church. The Sovereignty of Rome, Anglicans repudiate, as mere secular Imperialism transferred to the Church, from the State. The Infallibility of the Roman pontiffs, the Anglican Church denies, as an assumption by one man in the Church of a power, or faculty, conferred by our Lord on the Church as a whole. From what has been said, it seems evident that there is no scriptural evidence that St. Peter was appointed supreme head of the Church by our Lord, and that there is no historical evidence of any sort which proves that St. Peter ever attempted to transfer any authority, peculiar to himself to the Bishops of Rome; and that what the early Church conceded to the Patriarch of Rome, was a primacy of honor among equals, and not a supremacy of authority, by divine appointment.

New Discussion Board

I'd like to call your attention to a new discussion board, operated by Jonathan Munn (Warwickensis), on which I serve as a moderator.

Anglican Diaspora

http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/v45index.cgi

Hope to see some of you there.

ed

Pluriform Truths, Two Integrities and Double Think

"There are, as have been described, two integrities: those who believe that women should not be ordained at all and those who do believe that women can serve in ordained ministry– although within the latter group there are differing understandings as to whether this includes priesthood and extends to congregational oversight and serving as bishops...We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women, in the life and leadership of the church."
Bishop Martyn Minns, Dec. 9, 2007

"As Anglicans we interpret and live the gospel in multiple contexts, and the circumstances of our lives can lead us to widely divergent understandings and points of view. My first reading shows the [Windsor] Report as having in mind the containment of differences in the service of reconciliation. However, unless we go beyond containment and move to some deeper place of acknowledging and making room for the differences that will doubtless continue to be present in our Communion, we will do disservice to our mission."
Former TEC Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Oct. 18, 2004

Well, I suppose we are supposed to be delighted that Judge Bellows found in favor of the CANA churches in Virginia. I am partially delighted, because Katherine Jefferts-Schori has lost, for the time being. But, when I consider that Bishop Martyn Minns has been using the term "two integrities," I find it difficult to see a hopeful amount of difference between him and Jefferts-Schori's predecessor, Frank Griswold. He coined the term "pluriform truths" to smooth over the problem of hopelessly irreconcilable convictions by a method he considered quite clever, but that we may call psychosis, or split personality. George Orwell called it "Doublethink," an idea he owed to Saint James. "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8)

Try, just try, to convince the CANA people that if sex in one sacrament makes no difference, that is, if a woman can be a priest (bishop or deacon), then it matters not a whit in another sacrament, and Adam may marry Steve instead of Eve. In the new TEC heresy about Baptism, the sacrament is not a cause to reckon ourselves indeed dead unto sin, but rather to eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow we die. To apply this reasoning to Holy Orders, but not to Matrimony, to think that there is no connection between women's "ordination" and blessing of same sex unions, is to miss a fact as basic as two plus two equals four. If the authority of the Church to teach the meaning of scripture is overturned about sexual identity and Holy Orders, no force on earth can prevent the gravity of logic that carries it all the way.

So, I would like to rejoice in the legal decision; but, I see plainly enough that it is only a matter of time before the supposed "good guys"of CANA are back to the very problem, Homosexualism, that has led them to seek refuge from TEC. Of course, by that time, TEC will be blessing inter-species Unions, and so the Reasserters, that is, the Neo-Orths, will be relatively orthodox. That is, by comparison (which is another way of saying, in a pig's eye).

In a 2003 meeting now infamous due to my widely read article, The Gay Divorce', I recall a speaker from that AAC organization in TEC (or, as we called it in those days, ECUSA) making this brilliant observation about what would save the Episcopal Church: "We need to take our church back to where we were before the vote to consecrate Gene Robinson." I stood up, and addressed those poor ECUSAns thus: "So, you think it would be a great victory to go from being the 'church' that has already done the deed to being the 'church' that is about to do the deed."

Of course, we all know, don't we? that the whole problem started with those nasty queers; there were no symptoms of any problems by which anybody could see it coming.

Yeah, the Reasserters impress the hell out of me.

Answering the crisis of authority

In Book III of his Laws, Richard Hooker argued for the high place that Christians must give to reason (or, as is sometimes said, right reason). In his arguments, he gave no room for the way in which modern revisionists attempt to distort his work. What emerges from an honest reading is that Reason itself is tied to sacred Tradition, or the Church with her authority. It is in keeping with fidelity to what has been received (again, following St. Vincent, "what has been believed always everywhere and by all.") that "we have the mind of Christ." (I Cor. 2:16) This is the answer to revisionists, and also to the so-called Reasserters who follow the idea that the only argument for the authority of scripture must come from the scripture itself.

Wayne Grudem (himself a Baptist, but the Anglican "Reasserters" clearly regard him as an authority) argued this idea in his Systematic Theology. He stated the position that only the scriptures have the authority to verify their own authority, an obviously circular argument that collapses in on itself; and it is something that the Fathers of the Church would have found, at best, quite unnecessary. After all, the Fathers of the Church were very much aware of having received authoritative tradition, a consistent teaching handed down from the Apostles, that other part of Apostolic Succession that must accompany the Laying on of hands. Allowing the authority of this Tradition to answer the demands of Reason secures the place both of Scripture and its proper interpretation by Apostolic teaching.

The tautology of Grudem's argument is dangerous, as is demonstrated in the same book. For he wrote that if we found a work that could be identified as a writing by one of the Apostles, we would have to regard it as scripture. This exists in a modern version of Protestantism, or neo-Evangelicalism, that often stresses that the scriptures are the Word of God as they were in the original autographa (original autographs). Of course, we have no access to any autographa of scripture, and therefore no settled authority, really, for anything- that is, if we buy that model of authority.

The authoritative Tradition of the Church answers the demands of Reason, and also gives us a fixed and authoritative Canon of Scripture that modern Evangelicalism, by its circular argument and concept of an ever elusive autographa, simply cannot have. And, this genuine crisis of authority exists in the "Reasserter" camp too. What they fail to see, also, is how well their position plays into the hands of the most heretical and apostate revisionists, aiding them in everything from women's "ordination" to the blessing of same sex unions. The authority of scripture, without the authority of the Church that has handed down a recognized body of teaching to guide our understanding of scripture, can be used by anybody to teach anything. They can argue endlessly, but never prevail over those who are "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (II Tim. 3:7)

* * *

It has been pointed out that Richard Hooker, due to the era in which he lived, did sometimes use the word "tradition" in a negative way. Because he could, at times, use it in that way, it is all the more significant when he used it positively, in this case to speak of the authority of the Church not just in matters of polity, but of doctrine. So it is that he makes the case for the authority of the Church to teach that the Scriptures are the very words of God himself, and that they contain all things necessary for salvation.

XIII. Because we maintain that in Scripture we are taught all things necessary unto salvation; hereupon very childishly it is by some demanded, what Scripture can teach us the sacred authority of the Scripture, upon the knowledge whereof our whole faith and salvation dependeth? As though there were any kind of science in the world which leadeth men into knowledge without presupposing a number of things already known. No science doth make known the first principles whereon it buildeth, but they are always either taken as plain and manifest in themselves, or as proved and granted already, some former knowledge having made them evident. Scripture teacheth all supernatural revealed truth, without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained. The main principle whereupon our belief of all things therein contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the oracles of God himself. This in itself we cannot say is evident. For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart, as they do when they hear that “every whole is more than any part of that whole,” because this in itself is evident. The other we know that all do not acknowledge when they hear it. There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers. Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is divine and sacred.

XIV. The question then being by what means we are taught this ; some answer that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition; as namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessors and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all men’s experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God’s Church1 . For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. If infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew, what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judged thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true. Wherefore if I believe the Gospel, yet is reason of singular use, for that it confirmeth me in this my belief the more: if I do not as yet believe, nevertheless to bring me to the number of believers except reason did somewhat help, and were an instrument which God doth use unto such purposes, what should it boot to dispute with infidels or godless persons for their conversion and persuasion in that point?

Laws Of Ecclesiastical Polity Book III. Ch. viii. 13, 14.

Torch Running

This is not a propos of anything customarily dealt with at The Continuum, and would certainly be rejected if submitted as a comment to another thread. But I am exercising my droit du segnieur as owner of this blog to ensure that my name goes down in Olympic history.

I have been following the antics surrounding the running of the Olympic torch through the streets of various major cities in the world, and am amazed at the speed at which they run -- leaving Paris yesterday to reach San Francisco today or tomorrow.

But as I contemplated the scrums that materialised in London and Paris, it occurred to me that perhaps Torch Running could become the next Olympic event.

Golds would be awarded to the country with the fewest "snuffs" (instances in which members of the opposing team forced the extinguishing of the flame) and "downs" (instances where the runner was put on the ground), adjusted by the number of "yellow cards" (instances where members of the opposing team are arrested). For purposes of fairness, only foreigners would be allowed to compete against the national team.

These are just the bare bones of the new sport, and I welcome suggestions on how to round it out, remembering always the rule that sport is not politics.

Forty Days at Walsingham, Perhaps?

This is just too good not to share, and I thank my friend Fr Steve Petrica for doing so. For those of you whose parishes are looking for fund-raising opportunities, take a tip from the folks at Western Wall Prayers. It's got to be a winner.

Too often someone asks for prayer, and we say, "of course!" and add their intention to our prayers. That's all well and good, as far as it goes, but think of the foregone income opportunities it represents! A group in Israel has devised a way to address that shortcoming. They offer:

Standard Prayers:
A Torah-observant Jew will go to the Western Wall to pray on your behalf as well as others for 40 consecutive days. Minimum donation: approx. $2/day ($90).

Exclusive Prayers:
A Torah-observant Jew will go to the Western Wall to pray exclusively on your behalf for 40 consecutive days. The entire Bircas HaTorah Yeshiva will say a psalm for you and Rabbi Nebensahl, Chief Rabbi of the Old City and one of the great Tzaddikim of our time will do a Mesheberach for you (special prayer in front of a congregation). Minimum donation: $9/day ($360).

Personalized Exclusive Prayers:
In addition to an exclusive prayer, over the course of the 40 days, the entire Book of Psalms (150 Tehillim), or King Solomon's Song of Songs (Shir ha Shirim) will be recited at the Wall, a Mesheberach prayer will be recited in Synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem on Shabbat and a Mishna (portion of the Oral Law) will be learned daily in your merit. Rabbi Nebensahl, Chief Rabbi of the Old City and one of the great Tzaddikim of our time will also do a Mesheberach for you. Minimum donation: $18/day ($720 US + *up).

Premier Prayers:
With special permission from the Vaad HaRabbonim (Council of Rabbis in Israel), a minyan (10 Torah-observant men) will pray together for 40 days at the holiest place where Jews are allowed to go - deep in the Western Wall tunnels across from the Holy of Holies. This excludes Shabbat, when they will pray at the Western Wall itself. This site is not available for public prayer. Because of its holiness, special permission is required and is only given in rare circumstances. Minimum donation: $1,800.

Custom:
Please contact us personally to make special higher-end arrangements.

http://www.westernwallprayers.org/fortydays/whatwedo.html)

SECOND SUNDAY AFTER EASTER

II Peter 2:19-25

John 10:11-16

The Epistle we read today is drawn, as I hope many of you have noticed, from that very famous Suffering Servant passage in the book of Isaiah, specifically chapters 52:13-53:12. I have said before that the Suffering Servant passage goes beyond Christ’s atoning death, predicting as well his resurrection by telling us that he would, after death, “prolong his days” as the agent of God’s will. It predicts the day of Pentecost by telling us that Christ would “divide the spoil with the strong.” This echoes words from Psalm 68: 18: “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men.” But, as the chapter draws to a close, the prophet takes us back to the cross, because that was the main thrust of this particular passage. In this way the Holy Spirit reminds us, through the prophetic oracle, that all of the grace, and, indeed every gift, that God gives to us has come by way of the cross of Christ. St. Anselm taught that Christ did all the work, and after earning a great reward for his labor, gives all of the benefits of his work away. He gives all of the earning, profit and reward to us. For, he is God the Son, and has need of nothing.

The emphasis of that passage is what Jesus did for us, and very importantly, what he did as the One for the Many. And, I can think of no better summary of that prophetic passage about the sacrifice Jesus offered of his own life, than the words of St. Paul from the fifth chapter of Romans:

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

So, we get that message, that Jesus died for our sins just as scripture foretold. St. Peter puts it to us with great force: “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” That’s the first message. Christ offered himself as the Lover of mankind, in fact, as the one who loves you. He is the sacrifice not just for the whole world, but for you; dying as much for each as for all.      This is why I tell you so often; when you look up at the crucifix where he pours out his soul unto death, and you see his love there, take it personally.

When we prayed the Collect today, we asked for understanding and for grace to see in his death two very important things that go together. This is what we prayed: “Almighty God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an ensample of godly life; Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavor ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” This Collect is drawn from the Epistle we read.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not: but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

This follows an exhortation to be patient when suffering wrongfully.   “If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” Peter tells us that when we follow Christ our Lord, we may expect to find the cross awaiting us. When we find it, and find no way around it, we may embrace it as the will of God, just as Jesus did.

The Lord spoke clearly of the difference between a true shepherd and a mere hireling, “whose own the sheep are not.” The Church has had its fill of hirelings. Because I report on current events for The Christian Challenge, I am required to keep a close eye on the goings on of that other denomination, the one whose cathedral is a stone’s throw down the street (but we resist the temptation). We have already come to the conclusion that they have gone so far from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that, as a denomination, they are no longer in any true sense a church. Many people are starting to find their way out of darkness and confusion, but as they try to break free from that denomination they discover that the people running its main office are hirelings rather than shepherds. And, the result is that even members of the laity (sincere men and women who intended to serve God and his Church by serving on vestries), have been sued by their so-called Presiding Bishop. Can you imagine being in what you see as your church, and finding that your Presiding Bishop, so-called, is suing you? If it were not really happening, it would make good satire.

That is not only the work of a mere hireling; it is the work of the wolf. What is there to say, except words from the Book of Revelation? “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Rev. 18:4)

We know that the Church must tend to business in this world. Indeed, every family must conduct business. We all must have a place to live, food on the table, and utilities. So, the Church, like every family, must engage in a certain amount of practical business. Jesus sent his disciples to buy the things needed for the Passover; every family must conduct these practical matters of business.

But, though the Church must take care of a certain amount of necessary practical matters of business, the Church is not a business. We are not here to earn a profit (and thank God, because we would be failures if we had to be judged by the criteria of the marketplace).   And, the work of the clergy is to serve as shepherds, and so carry on the work of Jesus himself.        It is to care for God’s people, not to sue them, not to devour them, and not to abandon them in the face of danger, like the hireling who sees the wolf coming, and flees.

Some men receive Holy Orders and become hirelings; and, if they are not hirelings for money, they may be hirelings for something else. I see, sometimes, young men who were ordained much too early, and who imagine that the priesthood will give them respect from others. They love the title, they love the vestments, and, they remind me all too often of the words of Jesus, about the Pharisees who loved greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi. 1 Well, if they stick long enough, they find the cross that they cannot get around. That is when they find out if they were ordained for the right reason.

I look at everything it has taken to establish St. Andrew’s here in Easton, and all the years of hard work, and I know that we have an apostle, a true shepherd in our bishop. Right now we look around, and it all looks beautiful. But, for years it was very difficult, a constant struggle just to keep a small congregation alive in a little chapel, in rented space. Frankly, it is not easy now, and we need to keep laboring. But just look around at what we have now. You are looking at the fruit of commitment, and of faithfulness by our bishop, and also by people who are here with us still. And, I do not mean the building we are in, much as we thank God for this place. I mean, the congregation. I mean you, the Body of Christ here. From the oldest person here, to the children we are teaching every Wednesday evening, and smaller children, soon to be baptized.

Look at the closing words of today’s Gospel: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd.” I have no doubt that this speaks mainly about the inclusion of the Gentiles, the grafting in of non-Jews to the cultivated olive tree of Israel, and began to be fulfilled when St. Peter went to the House of Cornelius to see Pentecost repeated and the Holy Spirit poured out on Gentiles. But, it is also right for us to see that, even today, there remain yet other sheep, not of this fold, who need to be brought in. The work is far from over, and each of you may have a share of that work. Because “you are the Body of Christ and members in particular 2,” each endowed with special gifts for ministry by the Holy Spirit, you are called to share the work of bringing those other sheep in. And, that is a win-win proposition. It is good for the parish, and good for them, indeed, a lifeline sent out to them whether, at first, they realize it or not.

If we are to work in God’s field with all the mess sheep bring, and the dangers presented by the wolf, we need not worry about finding the cross. It always finds us if we are faithful to Christ. It will be there; that I can promise each of you. The cross, in some form or other, is all that the fallen sinful world has for true servants of Jesus Christ. Not honor, respect or esteem; the cross. So, you don’t need to go looking for the cross, because the world is quite aggressive in providing it. Like the Son of God, who endured the cross, and despised the shame of the cross, for the joy set before him, 3 may each of you have grace to endure, to hope, and to follow in his footsteps. The suffering is but for a moment, that is, brief: But the joy is eternal.

On his cross, the Good shepherd died for us; and by his cross he showed to us how to follow him on the path of life.

1. Matt. 23:7

2. I Cor. 12:27

3. Heb. 12:2

Keeping track of these times

A brief overview of what these times mean for our fellow Anglicans is here offered for the sake of perspective. This is not nearly as exhaustive as my upcoming Special Report for the next issue of the Christian Challenge, nor is it meant to cover all the same ground. Rather, this overview is simplistic and brief, and intended mainly for Continuing Anglicans.

We all should know, by now, that the crisis over the Homosexualist heresy has created an explosion that may finally divide the Anglican Communion. And, although, as I have reported, the whole realignment of TEC dioceses into the Southern Cone began because the three Forward in Faith bishops (of San Jaoquin, Quincy, and Ft. Worth) sought a way to avoid having women's "ordination" forced on their respective dioceses, it is the Homosexualist heresy that has been the major wake up call, both in America and throughout the world. If there is a major geographic dividing line, it is between the North and the global South.

At this time, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is seeking a way to smooth over completely irreconcilable differences between those who are called "Traditionalists" (by very minimal standards) and the most way out liberals. His approach is based on the idea that they can overcome differences by, in my words, negotiation and compromise. As I stated recently, this approach seems to come from some idea that Christ has established a republic instead of the Kingdom of God. What is supposed to be a subject of negotiation is nothing other than God's commandments, about which there is no room for negotiation and political solutions.

The result of the Archbishop of Canterbury's efforts is that two major events are coming up this year instead of one. In July, the once every decade Lambeth Conference is scheduled. One month before that is GAFCON, the Global Anglican Futures Conference, in Jordan with a pilgrimage to Jerusalem as one major event on the schedule. Many of the bishops, including Primates, who refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference will attend GAFCON. The Archbishop of Canterbury could have prevented GAFCON, and could have counted on full attendance in Lambeth, by sticking to the plan in the Windsor Report and the Communique from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. This would have made it necessary for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to repent from having "gay" bishops, blessing same sex unions, and lawsuits against "fellow" Christians, or lose their place in the Anglican Communion.

In early 2006 the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote (to a source whom I cannot name) that he saw no way to keep the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion. The problem seems to be that he was actually trying to find a way, when he was morally obligated instead to cut it loose and let it drift (after all, the Episcopalians themselves had decided to "walk apart from the Anglican Communion" rather than repent. It was their decision). But, despite the fact that the response from TEC was not acceptable to most of the primates, Rowan Williams has allowed the matter to be treated as unresolved, and something to be discussed at the Lambeth Conference itself.

The main players in GAFCON are, as a result, also planing to boycott the Lambeth Conference. These include The Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Most Rev. Peter Akinola, The Most Rev. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sidney, The Most Rev. Kolini, Archbishop of Rwanda, The Most Rev. Gregory Venables, primate of the Southern Cone, and others.

(The Bishop of Rochester, Right Reverend Dr. Michael James Nazir-Ali, has also made it clear that he, a Church of England bishop, will not attend the Lambeth Conference. The Most Rev. Mouneer Anis, Primate of the Middle East, will attend GAFCON.)

Dr. Rowan Williams may very well become the Archbishop of Canterbury known to historians for having failed to hold together the Anglican Communion. Although the GAFCON is supposedly not intended as a rival event to the Lambeth Conference, we have every reason to expect that it may become that and more. It has the potential to launch a new Anglican Communion headquartered in the global south, most likely in Nigeria. The leadership of Archbishop Akinola might transfer into a place for his See as a new Canterbury.

Our response

Such a new Anglican Communion would have a multitude of conflicting ideas even within its relatively conservative understanding. It would have within it those who oppose women's "ordination," those who reluctantly tolerate it, and those who champion it. It would have other peculiarities, such as the Diocese of Sidney refusing women's "ordination," but practicing "Lay Presidency" under the leadership of a very Calvinist archbishop. But, what it would not have is people who mean to rebel against the authority of the Lord because they simply don't believe in him.

We have every reason to give these leaders the benefit of the doubt, granting to them that theological confusion and ignorance have been the result of long association with the modern Anglican Communion, despite their sincerity and good faith. We need to support their realization that the Anglican Communion (as such) no longer deserves the endeavors of their goodwill, and that like us, they do not really need Canterbury in its morally compromised spiritual condition. We ought to hope and pray that as their clouded understanding clears, the light will break through about those other matters of doctrine and practice that continue to divide many of them from us.

However, unless our own house finds better unity (including a reconciliation between the TAC and the ACC), all of our orthodoxy will not help us rise to this occasion with the kind of force that these, our Anglican brethren (more importantly, they are our Christian brethren) need from us. We know that we can teach them a better way; but to be heard, we cannot allow ourselves to appear as an insignificant group on the fringe (which, indeed, we are not). We need to declare that we are the pioneers who have already staked out the territory for them.

After thirty years of "walking apart" from the See of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion, we look around us and see fellow Anglicans bending over backwards to stay within that Communion while trying to be faithful to Jesus Christ. We want to call out to them and say that we have learned that we can be the Church, and be faithful to Anglican beliefs and practice, without Canterbury; to say to them, if the situation proves hopeless, then keep your hope anyway. For the structure we call the Anglican Communion is not essential to the Holy Catholic Church. The Faith, however, is essential.

Bishop Duncan to Katherine Jefferts-Schori

Take a look at the item I have placed in bold type. Charitable comments anyone?

14th March, A.D. 2008

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop
815 Second Avenue
New York NY 10017

Dear Katharine,

In response to the request set forth in your letter of January 15th (which enclosed the certification of the Title IV Review Committee), I state that I consider myself "fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church."

In particular:

1. I have striven to follow the Lord Jesus with all my heart and mind and soul and strength, all the while relying on God's grace to accomplish what my sinfulness and brokenness otherwise prevent.

2. I have kept my ordination vows – all of them – to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to "banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God's Word."

3. I have preached and taught nothing but what faithful Anglicans and mainstream Christians have always preached and taught, with the exception only that I have supported and encouraged the ministry of women in Holy Orders.

4. I have been present to all but two meetings of the House of Bishops (out of twenty-four) during the last 12 years. In those meetings I have clearly and openly opposed the theological and moral drift of the Episcopal Church, often in the face of great hostility and sadly, at times, derision.

5. I have made no submission to any other authority or jurisdiction.

6. I have gathered Anglican fragments together from one hundred and thirty-five years of Episcopal Church division, vastly increasing understanding and cooperation, though preserving the jurisdictional independence of all.

7. I have, with the clergy, people and para-church organizations of my diocese, built missionary relationships all over the world, fielding both missionaries and resources on five continents.

8. I have faithfully served and shepherded the clergy and people of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh through what has, by God's grace, been one of its greatest periods of extension and blessing. My intention is to continue in this call for what remains of my active ministry.

Faithfully in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
Bishop

Virginia Court Rules for Parishes

From the ruling issued on Thursday:

However, (the court) blinks at reality to characterize the ongoing division within the Diocese, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as anything but a division of the first magnitude, especially given the involvement of numerous churches in states across the country, the participation of hundreds of church leaders, both lay and pastoral, who have found themselves "taking sides" against their brethren, the determination by thousands of church members in Virginia and elsewhere to "walk apart" in the language of the Church, the creation of new and substantial religious entities, such as CANA, with their own structures and disciplines, the rapidity with which the ECUSA's problems became that of the Anglican Communion, and the consequent impact -- in some cases the extraordinary impact -- on its provinces around the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the creation of a level of distress among many church members so profound and wrenching as to lead them to cast votes in an attempt to disaffiliate from a church which has been their home and heritage throughout their lives, and often back for generations. (My emphasis)

ACC Has a New Bishop

The Very Revd Damien Mead was elected on March 29 as bishop of the Diocese of the United Kingdom in the Anglican Catholic Church.

Fr Damien, currently vicar general of the diocese, is awaiting confirmation of his election by the archbishop and college of bishops.

He asks that we pray for him "at this exciting but somewhat daunting time."

Darwin's Fish and Allah's Sword

I commend to you this piece by Jonah Goldberg published yesterday by Tribune Media Services:

I just watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.
During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior."
Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a
stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

The Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary

Transferred from March 25th

For this Feast day of the Annunciation I want us to meditate on two very important things.

The first is the meaning of the Incarnation in light of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. For, as soon as the Angel Gabriel announced to the blessed Virgin that she was to become the mother of God, the miracle happened. "The Word was made flesh" at the very instant that she accepted her mission with the words, "behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." The culture of death teaches us that life in the womb is worth nothing, a mere thing to be thrown away. Indeed, the pressure today is to accept birth as the beginning of life, when, in fact, it is simply an early stage in a life that has existed for nine months.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats tells of those on the Lord's right hand, to whom the words are spoken: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. " It also tells of those on his left to whom terrifying words are spoken: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. "

The Word became flesh, that is, he took into his Divine nature the fullness of human nature. In so doing he sanctified every stage of life, including that of the youngest and most helpless of all people. His brethren include children in the womb, many of whom are murdered every day for the selfish convenience of a wicked generation that does not know God, and that has allowed love to grow cold.

As Christians, we must continue to work for the sanctity of all life, from the moment of conception until death. We must do all we can to protect the children in danger, and to come as well to the rescue of expentent mothers who feel afraid, who feel undue pressure to kill their children before seeing their faces, and think they have no one to whom they can turn. We must be that lifeline to these, so as to save the life, whenever possible, of the one of these, the least of his brethren.

Also, I want us to consider this miracle, the Incarnation, itself. I mentioned before that Mary accepted her mission, a mission that would bring such pain to her, one Friday, that it would be, in the words of Simeon, a sword that would pierce her own soul. Her willingness to accept this mission would be fulfilled thirty three years later by her son, as he would pray in his agony, "not my will, but thine be done." Mary was the only person to share the miracle of the Incarnation with the Lord himself. She also felt more keenly than any other, the pain of his death.

What happened when the Word was made flesh? How did God do this thing? Not by reducing Divinity so that it could fit into a small receptacle. A drop that falls into an ocean is transformed into something grand, into part of an ocean. He did not reduce divinity. Rather, he took human nature into his own divine Person as God the Son. God the Son has taken human nature into His Divine Person, our created nature into uncreated Person. He has taken what is alien to Him, our humanity, as the One who is wholly other from every created nature, to forever transform human nature by making us partakers of the Divine Nature, as is written by the apostle Peter. This person, the Word (the λόγος) is both Uncreated and creature; both Eternal and in time; both omnipresent and local; both King and servant; both Lord and worshiper; both God and man.

This, the Incarnation, is, along with the cross, the expression and revelation of God's love (and, so it is fitting to remember that the Annunciation was originally thought to be the correct date of the first Good Friday, as we have learned). That love is the charity that St. Paul wrote about to the Corinthians, and is poured into our hearts by the Holy Ghost given to us.

__________________________

The following is worth keeping for a devotional to be used in addition to your other regular prayers.

The Angleus

V/. The Angel of the Lord brought tidings unto Mary,
R/. And she conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. (Lk 1:28) Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. (Lk 1:42).
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

V/. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord."
R/. "Be it unto me according to thy Word."

Hail Mary, full of grace...

V/. And the Word was made flesh,
R/. And dwelt among us.

Hail Mary, full of grace...

V/. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
R/. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray: We beseech thee, O Lord, pour thy grace into our hearts, that as we have known the Incarnation of thy Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by His Cross and Passion we may be brought unto the glory of His Resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Kearnon makes our point for us

The Republic of God is NOT at hand.

In a recent report in the Washington Window, we learned about remarks made by the the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. In his remarks he made a point, quite by accident, that has everything to do with why Continuing Anglicanism has been a fact for thirty years, and why it continues and grows.

Discussing the difficulties of the Anglican Communion, at Virginia Theological Seminary on February 22, he said "The Lambeth Conference was born out of controversy, therefore throughout its history it has not been a stranger to controversy." Mentioning the various bishops who will not be attending the Lambeth Conference, and making the distinction between those who are not invited and those who refuse to be present, he spoke at length about the most current cause of crisis and division. He spoke about the problems of Gene Robinson, and also about the CANA bishops.

To quote directly from the article:

"The Anglican Church's formal position on gays and lesbians is expressed in 1998's Lambeth Resolution 110, he said. This resolution 'upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.' It also states that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.

"'Statements from Primates Meetings and the Anglican Consultative Council have always affirmed the place of gays and lesbians in the life of the church,' Kearon said. 'The issue is, what can the church bless – and that's where we are now.'"

This was a simple statement of fact. But it continues:

"Kearon responded to criticism about the way the Anglican Communion has handled these issues by pointing out that the Communion is one of the few bodies that is openly addressing them. He also noted that the Communion came under similar fire when it changed its position on contraception in the 1950s (after voting against it in the 1920s and 30s) and on the ordination of women in the 1970s."

That came directly after this:

"'In order for the Anglican Communion to change its position on these issues, they must be worked through the system properly,' Kearon said. 'The process should begin at local synods and be taken up at conventions,' he said, 'then you begin to work it up through the church. Set up a commission, work it through…. If someone has a new idea for the way things should go, we should test it as a community of faith… We as a church should be very wary if people cannot express and test new issues in the life of the community.'"

Following the post of yesterday, this only means that the Anglican Communion has become an antinomian organization. Furthermore, this demonstrates the main problem we see in Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and in the whole effort of TEC and other churches (if we can call them churches anymore) such as the Anglican Church in Canada. The idea has arisen that we can make new rules and create new doctrines by consensus and compromise.

Yes, Canon Kearnon is right. This is, indeed, the same problem that was present in the 50s (much more so than 1930) concerning contraception, and in the 70s regarding women's "ordination." The problem is, it has become an accepted principle, with many Anglicans, that God is running a representative government, the Republic of God rather than the Kingdom of God. This is not the Gospel that Jesus Christ our Lord commanded us to preach.

Yes, theirs is not yet a wholly lawless system (even though in the United States TEC is now lawless); but the northern Hemisphere and "Western" Anglicans still need to undergo a radical conversion to Christianity. Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and commanded his hearers to repent of their sins. The real Anglican problem is this heretical idea that even though God has spoken, we get to vote on his divine proposals, amend them to our fancy, and to reserve a right by duly elected representatives to exercise veto power. Then, we get to send it all back to him for his consideration.

Well, to Hell with that-literally. Yes, quite literally. "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." (II Corinthians 5:11) There comes a time to talk about damnation and eternal punishment. In all of their democratic efforts to make the Church into a republic, they have rebelled against God completely, as if he has no authority himself to issue commandments. They seem not to realize that the Lord is no Constitutional Monarch.

To once again quote Fr. Cantalamessa's Good Friday sermon in Rome:

“'Who is it that overcomes the world,' John writes in his first letter, 'if not those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God?' (1John 5:5). Sticking with this criterion, the fundamental distinction among Christians is not between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, but between those who believe that Christ is the Son of God and those who do not believe this."

Legislative process and compromise are just another Tower of Babel in the end. Some ideas are so radically opposed to each other, that no compromise and reconciliation is possible, and never will be. "He that is not with me is against me." (Luke 11:23) To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, is to recognize that he is the King of the Kingdom of God. We are given no votes about what he has commanded.

Antinomian ECUSA

ἀνομία (iniquity)

Below is a letter from the Bishop of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church to their CEO (some call her the Presiding Bishop). I am posting it here as an example of what happens when a religious body turns its back on God and his laws. The result is that they abandon their own laws as well, not in favor of freedom, but in subjection to tyranny. Just as the chaos of anarchy produces dictatorship as a swift reaction, religious anarchy produces authoritarianism. The liberalism of ECUSA (or TEC, as it is now "called") has finally produced a new role for the office of Presiding Bishop- Litigator in Chief.

The lawlessness of the Episcopal Church, in the matter addressed below, is very simple. It is the lawlessness of tyrants over those who have no longer any genuine polity, having thrown off the shackles of law and order. Those shackles are the lowest common denominator of human behavior, a poor substitute for charity and simple consideration. Even so, those lowest of restraints have room under them for snakes to sliver.

The irony is that this comes from the same demented woman, Jefferts-Scori, who said this, back in January:

"It would be easier to let U.S. conservatives secede to join another Anglican province without a fight, but I don't think that's a faithful thing to do. Episcopal leaders are stewards of church property and assets, protecting past generations' legacies and passing them on to future Episcopalians. Allowing congregations to walk away with church property condones bad behavior. In a sense, it's related to the old ecclesiastical behavior toward child abuse, when priests essentially looked the other way. Bad behavior must be confronted."

Aside from such obvious facts as, the people who left their money and built those properties deserve to have faithful Anglicans as the beneficiaries (instead of modern ECUSAns of the Jefferts-Schori type), the method of propaganda is striking. Guilt by association was a major tool for Herr Joseph Geobbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, when stirring up antisemitism. These Nazi tactics are now the tactics of Jefferts-Schori. Goebbels associated all Jews with Bolshevism, and Jefferts-Schori associates all "traditionalists," who want to keep parish property for fellow believers, with child abusers. And, by associating the CEO with Nazis I have proved that two can play at this game.

Of course, the shoe does fit over part of her foot. She is a tyrant, and tries to run roughshod over any Canon Law that gets in her way. This antinomian streak cannot last forever, because when she has to face the Lord Jesus Christ, she will find that he has no respect for her position. And, that even if her full House of Bishops agreed, no votes will matter when they try to depose him.

Diocese of South Carolina Protests Presiding Bishop’s Failure to Follow the Canons

March 27, 2008

The Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop

The Episcopal Church Center

815 Second Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori:

We, as the Standing Committee and Bishop of South Carolina, write this letter to strongly protest what we recognize as a failure to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox. We respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops revisit those decisions, refrain from the planned selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of San Joaquin, and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions.

We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop.. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed.

Under Canon IV.9.2, the House of Bishops must give its consent to depose a bishop under the "abandonment of communion" canon. ". . . by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." The Constitution of the Episcopal Church, Article I.2, states in pertinent part that "Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity . . . has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and vote in the House of Bishops."

Due to amendment, Canon IV.9.2, at various times, required consent under these circumstances consisting of " . . . a majority of the House of Bishops," ". .. . a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled . . . to seats in the House of Bishops . . . " and " . . . by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote." The language of the Canon has consistently required that a majority of all bishops entitled to vote, and not just a majority of those present at a meeting, must give their consent to the deposition of a bishop. Although the language itself is clear, the definition contained in Title IV is even more specific. Canon IV.15 specifically provides that "All the Members shall mean the total number of members of the Body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies."

As we understand the decision by Chancellor Beers, he interprets the language " … the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" to mean the consent of a majority of those bishops who are present and voting. Yet if the drafters of Canon 9 had wanted to allow for the deposition of a bishop on a vote by a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, as distinguished from a vote by a majority of the whole, they clearly knew how to say that.

The Constitution, Canons and Rules of Order are replete with other instances in which the drafters knew how to articulate something other than " … the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.". The Constitution Article I 3, dealing with the election of a Presiding Bishop, requires that such a vote be "by a vote . . . of a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, except that whenever two-thirds of the House of Bishops are present, a majority vote shall suffice . . . " Unlike Canon IV.9, other Canons refer to a vote " . . . by a three-fourths of the members present" or some other "super-majority. In the Rules of Order of the House of Bishops, Rule V speaks of a vote ". . . by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting." That same language appears in Rules XV, XVIII (a) and XXIX. In short, where the drafters meant "those present and voting," they knew how to say so, and did so on a number of occasions.

It is only logical that a greater majority of Bishops should be required for involuntary separation by way of deposition than for voluntary separation by resignation. Canon III.12.8 (d), dealing with resignation by a Bishops, provides that the House of Bishops may accept or refuse a resignation of a Bishop " … by a majority of those present." Under Chancellor Beers' interpretation, it is possible for a smaller number of Bishops to consent to the deposition of a Bishop than the number required to consent to resignation of a Bishop.

Not only is this distinction of critical importance under the present circumstances, but also the question may arise again. Accordingly, and with all due respect to you and Chancellor Beers, we must respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops re-visit your decision and allow for a canonically correct vote on the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield and on any future possible depositions. Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved.

The Diocese of South Carolina demonstrated our commitment to the proper observance of The Episcopal Church Canons with two election conventions and eighteen months of Standing Committee and Bishop confirmations. Because we feel so strongly that the Canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed.

Yours in Christ,

The Very Reverend John B. Burwell

President, Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina

The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence

Bishop, Diocese of South Carolina

WHLIII/fnr

First Sunday after Easter 2008

I John 5:4-12
John 20:19-23

Generally speaking, the sacramental life is the way of salvation. This is the Catholic Tradition that the Church has taught from the beginning, from that first day of Pentecost when the appearances of the risen Lord Jesus Christ were fresh in living memory. It is the Faith we have received from our fathers, including those of our Anglican heritage. In the Gospel appointed for today we see the ordination of the Apostles themselves. This is not the Great Commission (for that He gave on different occasions during His resurrection appearances); but rather this was a special bestowal of gifts to empower them for the day their work would really begin- that day that we shall celebrate in a few weeks on Whitsunday, that is, Pentecost.

What happened when the Risen Lord breathed on them, and when He spoke these words of ordination? It was no mere formality; it was supernatural. When we consider those other words we have heard today from scripture, those of the First Epistle of the same Saint John, it may help us to place them in the context of the opening of that Epistle. In this way they take on their full meaning. For now understand, when John tells us about the witness of the Holy Spirit who speaks the truth within the Church, he hearkens back to those early days, those days of Easter and Pentecost, those days when they were seeing the Risen Lord, and the day when the Holy Spirit came in power to create a large body of Christ’s Church in the earth. And, at the center of it all was the ministry of the Apostles.

It was given to them to forgive sins; not simply to preach forgiveness, but to have the power of the keys of the kingdom, to bind and loose; the power to forgive sins or retain them. Do we understand this? Remember in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus was about to heal the paralytic man? Listen to these words from the ninth chapter of Matthew, vs. 2-8:

And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Look at two things that are here: 1) Many people today say that “only God can forgive sins.” But, they agree with the Pharisees who did not believe in Christ. 2) Look at the last line: “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” Not just to one man- to men plural. And so, Christ, in today’s Gospel tells the Apostles: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

This has special meaning for every priest. I was ordained by a bishop who uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer [American]; and the Ordinal makes use of the words of Christ from this chapter: This ordinal is all in the Book of Common Prayer. It says on page 546:

When this Prayer is done, the Bishop with the Priests present, shall lay their Hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the Order of Priesthood; the Receivers humbly kneeling, and the Bishop saying,

RECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

This power has been handed down from the times of these same Apostles in a real sacrament through the Apostolic Succession of bishops. It is not simply a relay race; it is the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit active in a time space world of matter, a reality that springs from Christ’s Incarnation and that is embodied in history, and is alive here today among us. Furthermore, it is not based upon the success or failure of the men though whom it has come, or whether or not they have been saints or sinners. The work is the work of God. It has pleased God to establish His Church so that the Risen Christ, even after being taken to the throne of God and hidden away from sight until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead, remains present in the earth, extending the mystery of His Incarnation and of His Resurrection through the Apostolic ministry of the priesthood.

Many churches have no one who believes that he has this power to forgive or to retain sins. Their doctrine is that only God can forgive sins. And, in all humility and charity, I must challenge them to explain what they do with these words of Jesus Christ. If the power to forgive sins is not present, then how can it be the same Church that Christ established? I do not deny that He is present in these churches; I do not deny that through them God gives knowledge of salvation. But, I must insist that the Church does not only proclaim salvation. To the Church, through the Apostolic ministry, is given the power to administer salvation by supernatural gifts that do not depend on the wisdom of men; but on the power of God. “Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?”It is not our own power that had made the crippled man to walk, Saint Peter was telling a crowd that had witnessed a miracle; It is through the name of Jesus Christ and through faith in His name. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” he would say on another occasion.

So we come now to the opening of Saint John’s Epistle, and to the context of the words that we heard about the witness of the Holy Spirit within the Church:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The message of John in His Gospel was that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory…” Here he speaks of seeing Christ, and of touching Him with his hands. He says that what he and the other Apostles heard and saw is what they have passed on. He says that life in the Church, the life in which we are called to be saved, is to have fellowship with the Apostles and through them, fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

Well, that may make it all sound like an exclusive club- until we remember that this fellowship is to be extended throughout the whole world, and the Gospel is to be preached to all nations. How do we have fellowship with the Apostles after 20 centuries? The simple fact is, through the sacramental life we are given, to use the phrase of Paul Harvey, “the rest of the story.” These days, everyone with a television or radio has heard someone tell them about the need to “come to Jesus and be saved.” And, we say to that, “Amen!” We even may find ourselves pronouncing it with a long “A”- Ae-men! But, we want to proclaim the rest of the story; the sacramental life. We want to extend the fullness of Apostolic fellowship to everyone; We want your joy to be full. Not superficial; not simply a happy feeling. We want your joy to be full- that is, filled with all the fullness of God, established and built upon solid faith, built upon knowledge of the truth of our salvation in Jesus Christ.

And it comes from the Incarnation; it all comes from the manifestation of the Word of Life in the Flesh; it is continued as Christ remains incarnate here in His body the Church. The Risen Christ is known to us in the waters of Baptism, in the Apostolic gift of Confirmation. He is known to us in the priestly ministry of the forgiveness of sins. He is known to us in the Breaking of Bread.