Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Church of England's first ‘gay marriage’

And so it came to pass, that the Reverend Peter Cowell and the Reverend Dr David Lord entered a civil partnership. This is permitted under Church of England guidelines, provided the partners remain celibate.

But this was insufficient for these two priests, as was a post-partnership blessing. They have been married at St Bartholomew the Great -one of London's oldest churches - using a ritual taken substantially from the Book of Common Prayer. The ceremony included marriage vows, exchanging of rings, and the Eucharist. The language was, of course, slightly edited for use by two men.

The Order of Service is available here, and it is clear that this ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was performed in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place.

It was presided over by the Reverend Martin Dudley, who opened the service by saying: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God to join these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity. Such a covenant shows us the mystery of the union between God and God's people and between Christ and the Church." In the vows, Mr Cowell and Dr Lord pledged to "hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part".

Mr Dudley blessed the union with the words: "As David and Jonathan's souls were knit together, so these men may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made."

It is evident that, to all intents and purposes, the Reverend Martin Dudley has indeed officiated over a proper wedding service - a Nuptial Mass - using the Church's traditional liturgy. And the fact that the 'marriage' was between two ordained priests makes the issue impossible to ignore on the eve of the Lambeth Conference.

The Most Rev Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of Uganda, said that the ceremony was ‘blasphemous’. He called on Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take decisive action if the Anglican Church were not to ‘disintegrate’. He added: “What really shocks me is that this is happening in the Church of England that first brought the Gospel to us. The leadership tried to deny that this would happen, but now the truth is out. Our respect for the Church of England will erode unless we see a return to traditional teaching.”

Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack, a prominent Anglican, said: “This is extraordinary. I am surprised the rector of such an important church should act in apparent defiance of his bishop.”

But Cranmer is not remotely surprised, for this is the Church of England.

And he shall be just as unsurprised when the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury say nothing, and do even less.


Anonymous Katy said...

And when Rowan does nothing, this will back-up my long held belief that the Church of England really should be renamed the 'Church-of-whatever-England's-society-wants'. Still, what surprise is there here; the Church of England was founded by someone whose unholy appetite made him unwilling to follow Christianity's teachings on marriage. What beautiful symmetry it will be should this be its downfall.

I hardly think His Grace is in a position to throw stones. If the monarch were gay, and some Archbishop found a loophole (or invented one) to enable his/her 'marriage' to a same-sex partner, such an Archbishop would only be following in His Grace's footsteps. The baby long since went the way of the bathwater, and His Grace helped it on its way.

15 June 2008 at 11:10  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

The Father of Lies.

Who causes us to lie? It is Satan. Satan works in our emotions and feelings. Perhaps, if we did not lie, we would embarrass ourselves, so we lie. We may try to cover the truth. We just cannot seem to tell the whole truth. It is written, Acts 5:3-BUT PETER SAID, ANANIAS, WHY HATH SATAN FILLED THINE HEART TO LIE? Satan is the father of lies. Satan was a liar from the beginning. Satan is a deceiver, and he deceiveth the whole world. Again, we are told in Col 3:9-LIE NOT ONE TO ANOTHER, SEEING THAT YE HAVE PUT OFF THE OLD MAN WITH HIS DEEDS. Once you are born-again, you are to put off the old man (Satan’s ways) and follow the path of complete truthfulness and honesty. If you do not, you are lying to (or deceiving) yourself. 1 Jn 2:4-HE THAT SAITH, I KNOW HIM, AND KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IS A LIAR, AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. Understand that, 1 Jn 2:21-NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH. No lie that you ever tell is of God. No matter what the excuse, no matter what the reason, no matter if your house burns down—if you make a promise, keep it. No lie is of God. Watch your words. Be careful what you say, lest you misspeak and lie. Jesus never lied. Satan is the father of lies. Whom do you follow? "Little white lies" are big, abominable lies that take you to the lake of fire.

15 June 2008 at 11:18  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

The first question that needs to be asked and answered is this. "IS MARRIAGE OF GOD OR OF MAN?" If marriage is ordained of God, then let us do it God's way. It is written, MARRIAGE IS HONORABLE IN ALL, AND THE BED UNDEFILED: BUT WHOREMONGERS AND ADULTERERS GOD WILL JUDGE-Heb 13:4.
A man is permitted one wife. A woman is permitted one husband. It is written, ONE WIFE-1 Tim 3:2; ONE WIFE-1 Tim 3:12; ONE WIFE-Titus 1:6; HER OWN HUSBAND-1 Cor 7:2.


15 June 2008 at 11:30  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Love but no buggery,don't make me laugh,it is what these queers live for,how can they pretend, if there is no physical contact,truly satan has prevailed.

15 June 2008 at 11:31  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

The intention is to humiliate us ... or more precisely to make us feel humiliated. The Established Church has been the perfect target because it was once a pillar of our common identity and of decency.

Might some of you benefit from belatedly reviewing your stubborn belief that "The Protocols" were a forgery? Doing so does NOT oblige you to condemn a 'certain people,' because they too are victims. It is the "secret and Satanist group at the top" who deserve our wrath and vengeance. Think of the word 'Sect' and you'll start to form a clearer picture.

A Transvestite recently took part in the Miss Thai Universe competition and did very well. It was almost impossible to tell the difference between "him" and the biologically genuine women. Homosexuality exists, probably always has done somewhere or other, and none of us wish to do harm to homosexuals simply because of their orientation.

Having said that, the shift to homosexuality by people in power these past 30 years or so has been nothing short of astonishing. George Bush Jnr was photographed kissing (on the cheek) a known rent-boy at a Washington function just 12 months or so ago. Indeed, the same rent-boy has been seen inside the White House. Furthermore, President Bush (Jnr) used to address his former strategist and "close" adviser Karl Rove, using a known homosexual hypocorism.

I suppose few of you know much about the fag rituals taking place at Bohemian Grove, but you should. That place's existence isn't a conspiracy theory ... it's as real as your warm coffee in the morning. Plenty of info on the Internet, which will explain all you need to know.

The promotion of homosexuality (or bisexuality) amongst our white youth is part of the "slow genocide of the White Race" agenda. Homosexuality forms a poisonous dualism with the Abortion industry and has resulted (using rough figures) in about 50 to 70-million fewer white children being born since 1970.

Susan Sontag (born as Susan Rosenblatt, in New York City to Jack Rosenblatt and Mildred Jacobsen) once famously said: "the white race is the cancer of human history" [Ref: Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57.]

'Tis a pity we don't yet have a media friendly epithet (like anti-Semitism) for someone who clearly represented and gave voice to deep, anti-Caucasian hatreds within the elite of US society, and particularly, amongst the literary elite of New York City.

Sontag had committed relationships with photographer Annie Leibovitz, choreographer Lucinda Childs, writer Maria Irene Fornes, and several other women.

Despite all of this, and for reasons that should not be difficult to work out, she was then showered with literary awards:

1978: National Book Critics Circle Award for On Photography

1990: MacArthur Fellowship

1992: Malaparte Prize, Italy

1999: Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, France

2000: National Book Award for In America

2001: The Jerusalem Prize, which is awarded every two years to a writer whose work explores the freedom of the individual in society.

2003: Received the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade (Friedenspreis des deutschen Buchhandels) during the Frankfurt Book Fair (Frankfurter Buchmesse).

2003: Won the Prince of Asturias Award on Literature.

You see, if you submit to the fantastical theology of aliens, who pretend to be your friends, then this is how you will be treated ... with contempt, and ever more aggressive intent. In reality, they consider you their slaves.

Me thinks the time for your self-awakening is overdue ... don't you agree?

15 June 2008 at 12:01  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Yes I do agree. For if the bell tolls now then let there be no doubt to the significance.
The forces of light are gathering, be sure of this.

15 June 2008 at 12:27  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Mission Impossible, I am delighted to see you back.

15 June 2008 at 12:31  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Katy would do well to reflect that Henry VIII's major error was to marry his dead brother's wife simply to preserve an alliance with the King of Spain.

The actions of Henry VIII have more to do with the politics of Europe and relations with France and Spain than with his subservience to The Vicar of Rome.

The issue here is not the Church of England but the low standard of behaviour among its clergy many of whom believe neither in God nor in Anglicanism but simply in the Here And Now and the Golden Calf.

It was ever thus, but in the past men of character ejected heretics from the church and upheld doctrine - such, however, is the result of 1960s university education that we have prelates who cannot conceive of a line which may not be crossed, nor anything eternal.

Institutions decay from within, and the C of E should simply see its revenues drop as Evangelicals without diocesan levies

15 June 2008 at 13:22  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Ah yes, Susan Sontag. That Harpie is of a vile vanguard who made it illegal to mention the race and religion of a certain group of child molesters in the North of England.

But oh well, only white girls, according to Susan Sontag they're all less than Cancer.

"The pimps are adept at trading on teenage rebellion and use similar methods, according to Crop, of convincing the girls all white people are racist. This is part of the controlling process, to instil guilt in the girls. “Like most teenagers, I was going through a phase of arguing with my mum,” says Gemma. “Amir told me they didn’t understand me and were racist and ignorant. I believed him.”

Race Hustlers helping there "brutherz" rape and molest children:

"In 2004, a controversial documentary on the topic of Asian pimps, Edge of the City, focused on the mothers of two girls being pimped by Pakistani gangs in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

But before it could be screened, a number of black and Asian groups, media such as the newspaper Eastern Eye, and websites including Blink (Black Information Link) organised an e-mail petition to pressurise Channel 4 into pulling the programme, arguing that its makers’ sole purpose was to perpetuate racism against Asian communities."

Times article here.

It's important to consider the banality of people like Susan Sontag. If only to prevent yourself from being poisoned with their hatred.

You see, she enjoys entertaining some post-Kantian doubts about reality, and is not sure if anything really exists:

"Sontag suggested we use this photographic ‘evidence’ as a presumption that ‘something exists, or did exist’, "

One thing she is sure of, however, is that whites are less than Cancer.

"Sontag drew fire for writing that "Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." (Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57.)[3] Sontag later offered an ironic apology for the remark, saying it was insensitive to cancer victims."

So much success. No wonder she hates "whites", by which she means the West.

15 June 2008 at 13:38  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Little black sambo ... I shall take that as a sincere comment, and I thank you. I am happy to see you still posting here at His Grace's esteemed Blog. We cannot yet measure the worth of the 'auld Archbishop's contributions to modern British thought, but we'll work it out one fine day. May his prised ghost slide through our arches without obstruction!*!?!

Me thinks many of us have travelled inestimable spiritual and intellectual distances these past few years (I know I have) and I am fairly confident we shall begin, not only to "see the light" as a people, but to actually know what "the light" actually consists of.

But, we are not there yet, and there is still a huge amount of work left to do, including a lot more mental and spiritual healing. Stay strong, and stay on track. Our enemies (who are also the enemies of HUMANITY) will crack very soon. No human --- for that is only what they are ... not 'Gods' --- can resist the rising tide. It is already over for them, and they know it, which is why they are getting more aggressive and more totalitarian.

For the most egregious cases, the death penalty will HAVE to be resurrected else we shall never be done with this Satanic filth.

15 June 2008 at 14:01  
Anonymous Katy said...

Voyager; error or not, he took his vows then broke them. What's more, significant effort went into helping him do it, and Christian teaching was entirely ignored in the process (the argument about not marrying your dead brother's wife is spurious, and anyway, he didn't wait for his divorce before dropping his trousers then taking yet another vow he didn't mean). If everyone were entitled to cast aside their wife/husband/child because they later decided they'd made a mistake, where would we be? I also count four 'mistakes' stupid are you suggesting he was?

If you make a mistake or deliberately commit a sin, you can repent of it. You cannot repent of marriage. You may decide to live apart, but not re-marry. Henry wasn't an idiot, he was just greedy. He insisted on having what he wanted simply because he wanted it, and created his own god in order to achieve it; there is no difference here.

15 June 2008 at 14:07  
Anonymous John said...

Mission impossible ..........

Like or dislike Susan Sontag, you do an injustice to this blog by denying her a greatness brought about through her literary works. She, following the destruction of the twin towers was strong enough to write ..........

"Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word 'cowardly' is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

Her bi-sexuality, 9 lovers, 5 women and 4 men, is a matter of morality, she did little not found in the Bible.

As I say, like her or not her words are both powerful and memorable, how many of us will be remembered post mortem as she is.

As for your wish for the return of judicial murder, lets hope this does not include the medieval ordeal which would be performed, naturally, in the church in the sight of your god.

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

15 June 2008 at 14:10  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

So you think Sontag's semantic quibbling is "memorable"?

And why is this self-serving crap "powerful?

"Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"

It is called Jihad. Though Sontag, being a Globalist Liberal (Like George Bush, like John, probably) wouldn't like to admit that because it would undermine the Star-Trek fantasy of one global united humanity.

Those who think 9/11 had anything to do with American Imperialism have understood nothing. They are probably the people who think that Israel causes all the trouble in the Middle East. I will be charitable. They have simply not been paying attention.

Finally, for John, perhaps you could enjoy some of Dinesh D' Souza's latest Christian apology/diatribe. He's as superficial as you so you'll probably enjoy it.

Have you got to the existentialist and irrationalist stage of Atheism yet?

Do you know that Atheists justify killing month old babies "because they do not possess consciousness"?

If you do know this you will probably realise that there is no reasonable basis for any kind of ethics whatsoever once you have jettisoned truth and God?

But Atheists are so crass and superficial you probably haven't realised this.

"As for your wish for the return of judicial murder, lets hope this does not include the medieval ordeal which would be performed, naturally, in the church in the sight of your god."

i.e. The conduct of Christians is an argument against Christianity? An argument against the existence of the transcendent? Such superficial crassness is to be expected from a naive atheist.

For a true atheist, a real Dionysian artist of mind wrenching blasphemy try Adolph Hitler. He was a genius, he recreated new values for a new-age in a tremendous "Triumph of the Will (to power)".

There. I have fed the troll.

15 June 2008 at 14:49  
Anonymous John said...

A horse feed a troll?

Not with an equine diet of myths, fables and prejudice.

"Believe your eye's" my father said, "read the word, as many and varied as possible". I do, I have and I continue.

Who has defined the equine blasphemy, is it law, if it is it shouldn't.

Without prejudice, John.

15 June 2008 at 15:56  
Anonymous David said...

I can feel the Christian love and compassion in this thread from here!!

Actually, this is all musics to my ears. You'll tear yourselves apart over the literal meanings in some ridiculous text written over 1500 years ago - we were barely primitives - and you just can't see it can you?

The Church of England will be dead in my lifetime.

Rejoice! Rejoice!

15 June 2008 at 16:31  
Anonymous John said...

David, as an early follower of Spinoza and latterly of Nietzsche, I commend the "horse" to you, when not downright abusive he offers a certain way with words.

Be prepared to be called superficial , crass, both superficial and crass, of course on occasion I have become irrational.

I enjoy Cranmer, though it is a little too christian at times.

Without a great deal of prejudice, John.

15 June 2008 at 16:44  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Mr Voyager

It may have been his dead brothers wife but marry her he did, legally, voluntarily and before God and that marriage lasted for 24 years before he got the ‘itch’.

Lest we forget the true and rightful Queen of England, Catherine of Aragon was crowned both as Princess of Wales and Queen Consort and she was extremely popular with the English people. She governed the nation as Regent when Henry invaded France in 1513 and when Henry sent agents of the Howard Clan to arrest her they were left in no doubt that if they didn’t leave they would be hacked to pieces by the inhabitants of a small hamlet called Buckden where she was staying and who came out in defence of their Queen. There was no grass roots support for Henrys adultery in England outside of a few merchant class Lutherans and Calvinists with influence and on the make. Henry although educated and intelligent was nevertheless a vain, cruel and unjust man and the Howards knew how to flatter and pander to his vanity, he was manipulated and used and today we still see the fallout.

On reflection Henrys actions were not dissimilar to those of King Saul in his rejection of the Law of Moses, Saul couldn’t get the prophet Samuel to excuse his disobedience and neither could Henry get the Pope to agree to his. Both Kings derived their authority from the leading Holy Men at the time whom they rejected and would have killed given the chance. Neither was ultimately willing to submit to the will of God, both their lines died out, as the Americans say, go figure.

15 June 2008 at 16:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If everyone were entitled to cast aside their wife/husband/child because they later decided they'd made a mistake, where would we be?

Oh dear...suburban values meet Tudor England.

Perhaps you should reflect on Mary Tudor and her marriage to the King of Spain, and Catherine of Arragon's appeal to her uncle besieging Rome.

Henry's father had seized the throne of England and the son was not ready for it to become an adjunct of Spain...nor of France. For that resistance to "European integration" we can thank him.

Do not ascribe suburban values more honoured in the breach than the observance today to a Tudor monarch.....or will you reject Jesus Christ because he was descended from King David who himself was adulterous with Bathsheba ?

15 June 2008 at 16:46  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

This is the reason I have stopped going to church. I have my beliefs and will stay at home.

The Church of England will slowly die if it is nor prepared to hold the line.

15 June 2008 at 16:56  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

in the begining there was adam and steve was made from adams rib??

i dont think so??

if the homosxual element want there cake and eat it why not set up there own church call it st wussie or somthing , and just leave the C of E to there own traditional thinking .

nice post homophobic horse on athieism scribblings by the way , i think you winged a fallen angle !!

15 June 2008 at 17:10  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

PREAMBLE: this comment will seem slightly off-topic to some readers, although one could argue there is very little that can be considered "off-topic" these days as the symphony of all our troubles is being conducted by the same upper echelons.


You silly boy 'John' [15 June 2008 14:10]

9-11 was a stage-managed, media event, designed and executed by a conspiracy in Washington and New York, USA who wanted to add some high-octane fuel to their plans for a "New World Order."

About half of the so-called 19 Arab hijackers have turned up alive and well since, back in the Middle East.

In 2001 it was impossible to have Mobile phone conversations whilst aloft in a passenger aircraft. So one whole Hollywood movie is one big propaganda lie (although the movie script writers didn't know that; they've been duped too).

Steel-framed buildings, especially ones so robustly designed and constructed as the World Trade Centre, do not collapse because a jet airliner has punch a hole near the top and sprayed jet fuel over the upper storeys. The melting point of construction steel is higher than the temperature jet fuel burns at.

At least five different eye-witness movies have demonstrated the towers were brought down by controlled explosives. The explosives used were Thermite. This is why the temperature at the base of the collapsed towers remained at several thousand degrees centigrade for over 2 weeks, because of the residual combustion of the thermite.

You have to be pretty stupid (scientifically illiterate) to believe two identical towers can collapse in identical ways, neatly into their own footprints, and within about 60 minutes of each other, after being hit by non-identical aircraft, and at different elevations.

The NYFD Firemen attending the first tower hit reported several "secondary" explosions at various levels in the building, including the basement, many minutes before the tower began to collapse. This evidence was ignored by the pseudo-inquiry initiated by the Bush cabal, despite being captured on video.

Other eye-witness movies have shown that the aircraft hitting the 2nd tower was not a passenger aircraft at all (it had no windows). It was an unmarked, twin-engined air-refuelling tanker. Basically, all the evidence points to these two aircraft being flown into the Twin Towers by remote control.

Furthermore, three towers fell on 9-11, not two as unconscionable fools like your goodself believe. WTC-7 fell several hours later, even though it was only superficially damaged by the rubble falling from the North and South WTC towers, and certainly not hit by any flying aircraft. Therefore, that too was brought down according to plan using thermite charges.

Five Israeli nationals were witnessed exchanging "high-fives" after the two major WTC towers fell. They were also stopped by NYPD Police but after questioning allowed to continue. They are now back in Israel. It is believed they were Mossad agents and had something to do with the actual implementation of the diabolical plan.

The Pentagon wasn't hit with a plane, it was hit with a missile, and the missile hit the one wing of the building that was undergoing renovation at the time ... therefore minimal human casualties.

The plane that crashed somewhere in the middle of Pennsylvania never did. No plane wreckage was ever found. The impact site the few televised reports showed consisted of a elongated slit in the ground, with a deep hole in the centre. That could have been, and probably was, made by a laser-guided bomb. Photographs have since shown up showing that slit in the ground was a topographic feature for decades before that fateful day. It's just that most ordinary Americans are so poorly educated those that can actually rub two brain cells together have their work cut out.

USAF jets were airborne that day but did not respond to the so-called hijackings because they were in the middle of a military / security exercise. Strange coincidence that one don't you think?

And if you think the flying of big jets by remote control is a preposterous idea, then consider the FAA successfully flew a Boeing 707 liner into a designated area to analyze crash test data way back in 1991 (if I remember correctly).

I could go on and on. The evidence for 9-11 being a crime against humanity, perpetrated by the Zionist-controlled government of the United States of America against ordinary and innocent civilians --- in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and thus move the NWO agenda forward --- is so overwhelming one is astonished anyone could remain duped by the official story, a full 7 years later.

Even more damning, the Department of Homeland Security (those who want to implant microchips into all Americans in order to monitor their movements 24 x 7) is being run by no less than five American-Jews; at least three of whom hold dual US-Jewish citizenship. The Head is named Michael Chertoff. Chertoff in Russian means "the Devil."

Considering all the above evidence (and there is a lot more damning evidence I haven't got time to list) I am astonished how people can continue to wonder why "Jews" (they are actually Kazhars, not authentic Hebraic Jews) are disliked or mistrusted by anyone with his head screwed on. These same diabolical people have already neutered the Russian Empire, castrated Germany, and reduced the USA to a den of wall-to-wall entertained, mentally retarded inhabitants with a fiat currency between them and starvation. And all within the space of 100 years. Not a bad performance eh?

So, in short, the words of Susan Sontag (another member of this evil Turkic Tribe) ... "Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower ..." ad nauseum are simply empty rhetoric. Her words about 9-11 are a complete red-herring. You say memorable? Only if you enjoy being abused.

Boy John ... you are giving a good rendition of being a helpless little sprat swimming in a sea of hungry sharks. If you can't see the bleedin' obvious vis-a-vis 9-11, or be bothered to make the effort to find out the truth, then don't waste any more of my or other people's time because you clearly want to participate in your own premature demise.

Now, where's that Pixie I saw in my garden a few minutes ago ... hey Mr. Pixie, you seen Mr. Leprechaun by any chance?

15 June 2008 at 17:48  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

David [15 June 2008 16:31] ... 1500 years ago we were NOT primitives. You've been reading your Disraeli quotes haven't you! Please try to avoid insulting your culture, and your fellow compatriots.

We (the Ancient Britons) had already constructed Stonehenge and Aylesbury, and completed a host of other mathematically correct monuments up and down the country (along lay lines) long before the first Romans had finished suckling on Romulus.

15 June 2008 at 18:02  
Anonymous John said...


You read but failed to understand what Susan Sontag wrote, she was telling you the 9/11 murders were not cowards because they gave their own lives willingly, right or wrong is another issue, but she also said the deed was done because a group of people in the middle east dislike the USA, its people, its commerce, its ..... everything. They don't like the UK much either, in fact they don't like anyone except Muslim's, and not all Muslim's at that.

In a sea of sharks? Maybe, it depends where you are standing, but my premature demise threatened by mission is much exaggerated for those who know me.

Without any prejudice or halucinations, John.

15 June 2008 at 18:13  
Anonymous The recusant said...


I think that your predictions of doom and gloom about the institution of the C of E are possibly valid, however you are a little late in your glee as even His Grace has despaired many times on his Blog over the future of both this and the Anglican Communion. But before you rest to warmly in your schadenfreude be aware that others before you have predicted the demise of Christianity and in each case it has been them who have expired. The ‘Christian love and compassion’ which you feel will be around for some time yet and will always have a place ready for you.

Re primitives, beware of your Chronological snobbery, it is a logical fallacy.

“The uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.” C S Lewis.

I have always struggled with the attraction of any philosophy that eventually drove its inventor mad. It is an unfortunate fact that the writings of Nietzsche, an ardent supporter of right-wing German militarism were widely studied and influenced the thinking of both hard line National Socialism and Communism (along with Darwin). Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all read and praised his works. Not in the wildest dreams of the most ardent liberal or Christian hating secularists has any philosophy spilled more innocent blood that these atheistic creeds.

Mr Voyager
Henry's primary concern was to sire a son to continue the Tudor line. Had the Pope agreed to the Kings Great Matter Henry would have been quite happy to remain under Rome and keep good relations with Spain. To his death Henry always upheld he maintained the Catholic faith in England with only himself as head of the Church instead of the Pope. There are still those who believe this, it was as delusional then as it is now.

I suspect you are falling for an adaptation of suburban values yourself, those of the entrenched version of Whig history that has allowed the interpretation of the past to be coloured by contemporary political (and religious) views. And before you slaughter me, I accept I am also inclined to this the same tendency.

15 June 2008 at 18:15  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

No threats John ... there's no real need to twist spurious meanings into my comment. It is simply my rhetorical way of trying to wake people from their slumbers!

There appears to be too much vital information YOU have failed to obtain. You must update yourself on 9-11, and urgently. Same goes for anyone else. I know it is difficult to accept a government (or at least, those who dominate it) can be so diabolical and evil, but there you go. Now we know they can be; including in the so-called "Land of the Free." That constitutional republic will soon be a police state according to the view of many commentators.

As for your clarification vis-a-vis Sontag and cowards, yes, I take your point. Now I can more clearly see your intended meaning. But, I would venture that discussion has been rendered academic because 9-11 was not a terrorist act perpetrated by Arabs or Muslims (whichever you prefer). Any Arabs that were involved were being used as props and dupes. The planes that actually hit those twin towers were being controlled by remote control. One of the planes was definitely not a passenger aircraft (it had NO airline markings). When you think about it, even the most determined airline pilot (hijacker) would find it rather too difficult to accurately fly a large aircraft into a building having the same width as the plane's wingspan, especially after a tight turn (vis-a-vis the 2nd tower). Humans flinch! Even the most ice-cold would lose concentration during the last few seconds, yet we have seen both jets hit an exact bullseye.

What I and many thousands of others want to know now is how the perpetrators of this outrage dealt with those passenger carrying planes that broke radio contact and/or were lost from radar screens. In other words, the ones that sealed the CNN / NBC / ABC / MSNBC / Hollywood version of events.

Have a long and happy life John ... but please wise up ... we need you free of all hallucinations!

15 June 2008 at 18:39  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the recusant ... you wrote:

It is an unfortunate fact that the writings of Nietzsche, an ardent supporter of right-wing German militarism were widely studied and influenced the thinking of both hard line National Socialism and Communism (along with Darwin). Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all read and praised his works. Not in the wildest dreams of the most ardent liberal or Christian hating secularists has any philosophy spilled more innocent blood that these atheistic creeds.

I believe you may be slightly mistaken. Nietzsche (who may have died of syphilis) did not inspire National Socialism, etc. That was achieved by his SISTER, who took ownership of his writings immediately following his death. It was in fact SHE who advanced and twisted his philosophy into a form that was used to help inspire Nazism. She also exploited Nietzsche's writings for her own monetary gain. If memory serves me well, these facts were well presented during an hour long programme featured on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel (I forget which). Please try an Internet search. You will find the gist of what I have just written is correct.

Nietzsche has been falsely maligned for long enough. It is time we got that piece of history correct. All he was trying to do is teach us how to think for ourselves and find the God within us.

15 June 2008 at 18:50  
Anonymous John said...

I must explore your " ....... spilled more innocent blood that these atheistic creeds".

I wouldn't wish to be considered "Christian hating secularists", I don't think I have ever hated anything, apart from semolina as a child.


I must avoid those mind effecting mushrooms at breakfast.

Good night to you all, and thank you for the exercise, John

15 June 2008 at 18:51  
Blogger Cranmer said...

We (the Ancient Britons) had already constructed Stonehenge and Aylesbury

Mr Mission Impossible,

Welcome back. Your creative and erudite contributions have been missed.

His Grace would, however, like to point out that Aylesbury was largely a construction of the 15th century. Avebury, on the other hand...

15 June 2008 at 18:52  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

All I can say at this point is that I have enjoyed reading all these comments, please do continue.

" I am fairly confident we shall begin, not only to "see the light" as a people, but to actually know what "the light" actually consists of."


15 June 2008 at 19:29  
Anonymous Katy said...


Henry's primary concern, as our resident recusant said, was to have a male heir and any suggestion to the contrary (particularly that he was somehow sacrificing his place in the Kingdom of Heaven for the sake of the country) is a re-writing of history eclipsed only by Henry's re-writing of Christianity. Or would you reject His teachings simply because they don't match received wisdom (a poor substitute for historical facts, I might add)?

The point I was making was, if you build your house on the shifting sands, you get what you deserve - a weak, wobbly house, being shunted this way and that at the whim of the tide.

We're all of us sinners. Most of us have the grace to accept it. Henry's mistake was, he thought his earthly needs were more important than God's will. If God had wished him to have a male heir of Catherine, a male heir he would've had.

15 June 2008 at 19:33  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Keeping with mission impossible's off topic, but highly relevant subject of 9/11.
I concur fully with your hypothesis, and commend your ability for concise yet comprehensive description.
Further to this worrying aspect of what these people are capable of, I have read today this article in the Washington Post, and cannot help suspecting that something major is afoot. What thinks you?

15 June 2008 at 19:59  
Anonymous David said...

The Recusant

Re primitives, beware of your Chronological snobbery, it is a logical fallacy

Not really. If you look at Lewis' quote - he describes that which has gone out of fashion

The earth being the centre of the Universe, Leeches, Alchemy; for example - these are not things that have gone out of fashion - but ideas which are simply factually incorrect. This is what I mean when I say our forefathers were primitive in comparison to ourselves. Their social hierarchies for example, may appear primitive to us, but were of their time and so cannot really be described so.

Not in the wildest dreams of the most ardent liberal or Christian hating secularists has any philosophy spilled more innocent blood that these atheistic creeds

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Firstly, Hitler was a Catholic - NOT an atheist at all. The forefront of thinking (if you can call it that) by Stalin and Mao, was anti-intellectualism - not atheism; and their evils were routed in this perverse tradition.

As an atheist and a secularist, I don't hate Christians, but what I do hate is the moral pronouncements on how other people should live their lives, based on (what appears to me) to be very flimsy evidence indeed. If I were to take my morality from a book, I'd really like to be sure it was correct.

15 June 2008 at 20:12  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Why, I do not fully understand, but the surety of the book is for some reason not imparted to all. You have my deepest sympathy. But the judging should be left to God. However, one of my many sins lies in my ability to hate, no matter how hard I try to do otherwise.

15 June 2008 at 20:25  
Anonymous Christopher Johnson said...

mission impossible? Were you born that stupid or did your mother drink a lot before you popped out?

15 June 2008 at 20:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

satan doesn`t need to touch the church of england, its doing a good job destroying itself!
Time for the real christians to stand up and be counted!

15 June 2008 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the Church - any Church or religion for that matter; never change or adapt through the ages?
Perhaps the 'Gay gene' is natures' way of dealing with overpopulation?

15 June 2008 at 22:35  
Anonymous David said...

Perhaps the 'Gay gene' is natures' way of dealing with overpopulation?

There is no consistent scientific basis currently for believing that there is a "Gay Gene" - rather that these things are a combination of Social, Psychological, Environmental and Genetic factors.

15 June 2008 at 23:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is why all true Christians in the Anglican faith should return to the true church-Rome!

15 June 2008 at 23:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Homosexuality is Natural" I hear this all the time. Here is an argument from nature: If you put all homosexuals on an island, how many generations would it be before NATURE cleansed itself? Right!


15 June 2008 at 23:49  
Anonymous David said...

That is why all true Christians in the Anglican faith should return to the true church-Rome

Surely, the true faith is Judaism? Jesus was a Jew was he not?

"Homosexuality is Natural" I hear this all the time. Here is an argument from nature: If you put all homosexuals on an island, how many generations would it be before NATURE cleansed itself? Right!

What a ridiculous argument. There'd be nothing stopping a Lesbian and a Gay Man procreating - in fact, some already do. Guess what, the children exhibit the same statistical probability of being homosexual as the children of parents who are both straight.

16 June 2008 at 00:28  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

mm the nature debate on homsexuality has some interesting avenues , of coure citing male bullocks attempting to have sex is a bit lame , I have agree with the idea that there may be a wiring element , i dont think its natures answer to overpoulation (that is starvation and war i think)

a much more interesting debate is that homosexuality pre dates christianity !! if my eygiptian and persian history serves me right.

so mr dave you are an atheiest secularist that doesnt think you should (not could) get your morals from a book . Does mr dave advocate the idea , that once free of the moral bindings of christianity , you create a better person ?? or society ?? .

i think most christians would agree that "the book" is what builds up the godly conscience in a person. I can find bits in the bible that i find a bit off modern thinking (there is no mention about the wether cars are sinful or the inetrnet).

you could argue christianity is now left high and dry and alien to the rest of the world . But it still remains is it true?? did christ rise from the dead ??

it is my proposition that in my faith i see somthing that you cannot possibly see , it is a mystery which iam prepared to enquire further on . You may think i am poorly rewarded for my faith and devotion , stupid even . you may think i have a false sense of grandure in that i have a redoubtable fortress of everything , and so i am delusional .

i put this question : if athiesm leads to a hopeless existence , why be one !!

16 June 2008 at 00:38  
Anonymous some bloke said...

As a conservative I find myself perhaps surprised not to be unduly concerned about the fact of these two men 'marrying' each other.
However, the style and ceremonial are clearly a challenge to traditionalists who must henceforth put up or shut up.

Neither am I at all worried about what the Bishop Of Uganda ( or any other overses Diocese ) may think; Church Of England for the English.

16 June 2008 at 00:59  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Your Grace [15 June 2008 18:52] ... I stand corrected, thank you. The English characters on my computer keyboard are indeed sharing space with the Arabic alphabet so I guess it got lost in translation! Ha-ha.

16 June 2008 at 05:17  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

mckenzie ... yes, the ends justify the means for such people.

Since 1916 there have been several false-flag incidents, and all involving the USA (the sinking of the Lusitania was pre-arranged to get the USA to enter WW-I with the quid-pro-quo being that London arrange for the birth of the State of Israel).

President J.F. Kennedy had given a speech where he asked the US Press Association to work against Secret Societies (such as the Freemasons). He and his brother Bobby were planning to reign in the Jewish ponzi scheme known as the Federal Reserve, and they were dead set against Israel obtaining the nuclear bomb. Within 6 months, a team of US conspirators had blown JFK's head apart with two bullets: one fired from the rear, and the second from the front. Bits of his brain were picked up by his wife Jacqueline. Just moments before, he had been shot in the throat, which caused him to slump towards Jacqui. Both Lyndon Johnson and George Bush Snr (a CIA operative at that time) have since been implicated in the conspiracy to kill, in broad daylight, and in front of millions of TV viewers, a sitting and democratically elected, US president.

It was the same George Bush Snr. who introduced the New World Order to Congress, in 1991.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and you will no doubt recall the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbour.

The head investigator of the Cole attack was John O’Neill, an FBI Agent for 20 years. He had already been involved in investigating a number of terrorist cases, including the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. He was considered the FBI’s top man on terrorism. In the late 1990’s, he became very attuned to Israel’s involvement in many terror operations.

Abu Nidal was the leader of the infamous Black September terror organization, and spent 30 years hijacking jets and planting bombs for Israel intelligence. O'Neill suspected Abu Nidal was a Mossad operative and talked openly about it with other field agents. He took a team of FBI agents to Yemen, where his investigation pointed to Israeli involvement.

Ms. Barbara Bodine was Ambassador to Yemen during and after the USS Cole attack. Ms. Bodine is also a Jewess ... which in the current scheme of things puts her closer to 'God Almighty' than even Jewish males because of the extremely sacred eggs she carries in her womb. Well, that's what "they" want you to believe anyway.

The quite attractive Ms. Bodine started an intense political battle to oust O’Neill. Bodine wanted to control the investigation, and resented the fact that suddenly there were hundreds of FBI personnel in the country.

Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State at the time, and also a Jewess (with Mongol blood, and no Hebraic DNA), then provided a handful of State Department personnel to watch over the investigation. So we have a situation where the FBI thinks there has been Israeli involvement in the Cole attack yet the US State Department sends a team to watch over the FBI!!!

Albright then complains to upper echelons of the FBI about O'Neill. At the same time, Bodine wanted John O'Neill to drop his bodyguards(!!) causing him to suspect an assassination attempt by Mossad. Bodine and Madeleine Albright finally went to the Zionist-Jewish FBI Director, Louis Freeh, to remove John O'Neill from Yemen.

When January 2001 came around, O'Neill wanted to go back to Yemen. But, Ambassador Bodine wouldn't give him clearance, so in July 2001, and despite his invaluable credentials, O’Neill resigned from the FBI.

In early September of 2001, merely days before 9/11, he got a job offer from Larry Silverstein (the Jewish owner of the WTC, who profited handsomely from the Insurance Payouts following their destruction). Oddly, O'Neill went missing for two days before 9/11 –-- miraculously his body was discovered intact in the WTC ruins. All other bodies had been shredded, incinerated, or flattened to pulp, but only John O'Neill's was found intact ... because he was assassinated.

Bill Clinton's entire foreign policy team were Jews: Defense Secretary (William Cohen), Secretary of State (Madeline Albright), National Security Advisor (Sandy Berger), and U.N. Representative (Richard Holbrooke).

The Clinton (Democrat) administration was involved in more military adventures than any other presidency since the Vietnam War. These included: Somalia, and the bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia. "The Kosovo conflict," noted Newsweek, "is often referred to as 'Madeline's War' ... More than anyone else she embodies the foreign policy vision that pushed [other Clinton officials] into this war." [Ref: ISAACSON, W., p. 25]

Judaism is a cult, predicated on paganism, and not a religion. Their leaders secretly worship Molech, the Golden Calf, and the Temple ... certainly not God.

It is stupid Christians who do not understand their Bible who have elevated these criminals to high places throughout the Western World. Financed by the Rothschilds dynasty, these so-called 'Jews' are the Storm Troopers of the New World Order, where we ordinary 'goyim' folk will be reduced to slavery, and monitored 24 x 7 using hi-tech surveillance techniques ... unless that is, we all (and that 'we' includes all Jews with a conscience, and those who are not Talmudic) start working towards their total demise, and start NOW!


To help you understand what really happened to create one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated (and history's biggest hoax!) I implore you to view these short videos.

It is essential you download copies onto your own hard-drive, for security, and for future reference. The Internet will not remain in its present state for ever. The files are about 10MB each in size.

Please watch each movie at least twice over. Installing Realplayer will enable you to watch them on your PC. Look for small puffs of smoke coming out of the WTC tower at levels well below the impact level. This is classic controlled demolition practise. I will also try to include the movie that proves there were secondary explosions.

The movie that shows the second plane hitting the tower should demonstrate what I wrote earlier is correct. That it was an unmarked twin-jet aircraft, without windows. It is believed it fired a missile into the building at the point of impact to facilitate its entry through the outer skin of the tower, which was also steel-girder lined. Remember that jet airplanes are quite flimsy ... they are made of aluminium. Only the jet engines have the momentum to do real damage.

After watching them, please shake yourselves out of your torpors and try to accept the truth: that you have been duped. Please allow all trust for your governments and politicians to evaporate. The "American Dream" is not worth your time of day; political institutions in the USA have been so infected by evil (and by aliens with allegiances elsewhere) they are now beyond repair. The USA is effectively a Zionist State, and no longer a western Constitutional Republic. As Jesus said, the truth shall set you free!

Collage of Tower Collapse anomolies:

Eyewitness Network TV Reporters, were reporting secondary explosions going off every 10 to 15 minutes. One part of this video enables you to hear one. Please turn up your volume control:

This short Flash video totally proves that Thermite Explosives had been planted in the Towers prior to 9-11 and it was these that were used to bring down both WTC towers, and not the Hollywood friendly jet aircraft:

This short Flash Video reveals why the plane that hit the 2nd Tower was NOT American Airlines Flight 175, but rather an unmarked military aircraft:

This short video provides yet more damning and possibly conclusive evidence that the George W. Bush led, US Government is guilty of committing an outrage against its own people:


Your future, and that of your Children's, are under direct and imminent threat. Having watched these movies, you should now know what they are willing to do to enforce their will. Please act without delay, and do something constructive.

"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." --- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

16 June 2008 at 07:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mission Impossible is David Icke and I claim my £5.

16 June 2008 at 08:30  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

anonymouse [16 June 2008 08:30] ... what, only £5? If you were so confident then why not wager £50??

I bet you haven't even watched any of the movies I have provided links to! You are just the kind of fodder people who lust for power love to love. You will do their bidding at the drop of a hat, which is why you can only sign yourself off as a mouse. You don't want anyone recognizing you if you come back.

I can understand why you have reacted with fear. Your world view has just been shaken (or overturned) by my 07:05 post. It is a normal psychological reaction. Abuse, name-calling, character assassination, and mockery are the favoured tools of imbeciles, losers, and people who cannot absorb (or can't be bothered to absorb) new evidence and radically new thinking.

Even many decent and intelligent folk find this process difficult, even when the facts are staring at them in the face. Those who are slow to change their opinions or beliefs DO provide society with a vital bulwark against liars and charlatans (although they must have gone to sleep in 1997). I am more than happy to have my posted comments strenuously tested. I welcome critical review. I positively encourage anyone to take the time and trouble to do their own research and to quote verifiable evidence (do unto others what you would wish others to do unto you).

There are three things Mr. David Icke has been absolutely correct about:

(1) The real and genuine existence of the Illuminati, hitherto their existence had long been denied by the usual array of sweet-talking liars. Only the very uninformed (or misinformed) continue to doubt their existence now.

(2) That the Elite don't see the need for strong-arm tactics because the people will police themselves; i.e., they will happily police each other. This behaviour is a continuum of the teacher's pet competitiveness many youngsters get addicted to. That is what happened during the 1930s in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union under Stalin's purges, and in the GDR under Honnicker and the Stasi. You've just been trying on your little blue uniform haven't you, my little Mouse. Did it make you feel swish and wonderful trying to so some policing of your brethren?

(3) That our society and culture is in the grip of a satanic cult that uses the Hegelian formula to engineer their self-serving progress: Problem >> Reaction >> Solution.

Events have since proven Icke correct on each of the above three counts. You still mocking mighty-mouse?

Better you trot off to a Newsagent and buy yourself a Playboy magazine, or perhaps something more explicit. Then you can go slink in a quiet corner somewhere and do what little men do when they are alone ... abuse themselves.

Free men don't stand for abuse ... they draw their swords and fight it at source. They have pride and dignity, and they also remember their ancestors.

16 June 2008 at 10:16  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

he cant be david icke was flying plane number two

16 June 2008 at 10:18  
Anonymous The recusant said...


CS Lewis did write ‘that which has gone out of fashion’ but in context he was clearly referring to the idea that because we live in ‘modern’ times we are somehow more enlightened, more cultured, more advanced down the evolutionary ladder so to speak than our forefathers in their retarded state. You see CS Lewis was documenting his conversion from atheism to Christianity when he wrote this as he himself had held to the idea that he lived on the modern 20th century, he like many atheists repeated the dogma that there is no place for the medieval superstition of religion in the modern world; humanity had surely outgrown that credulous, unproven nonsense and it was simply because our ancestors were not as advanced as we are that they beloved it, if only they had had the benefit of living I modern times, hence “chronological snobbery." See Surprised by Joy pages 207-208 - debate with his friend Owen Barfield.

Hitler was raised Catholic and Stalin trained for the priesthood in a Russian orthodox seminary, both rejected their faith early on and were excommunicated, subsequently they persecuted the Christian faith relentlessly in their countries. Hitler invented his own pagan religion but with Stalin and Mao all established the cult of personality and became little gods themselves. In that sense it is hard to call any a true atheist but to make even the most tentative connection with their upbringing, Christianity and their subsequent actions is just fallacious.

Dachau had a special priest block, of the 2720 priests 2579 were Catholic and the majority were Polish. The numbers for the Soviet Union are around 3,400 clergy alone that didn’t survive the Gulags. No other belief has killed 45 Million (WW2 alone).

We are subject ever day to moral pronouncements on how people should live their lives, we can’t avoid them however much we would like. Why is a Christian perspective singled out for special attention? After all it only has Ten Commandments not the thousands this government has made. The philosophy of ‘I’ll live my life how I like’ does not advance the cause of freedom any more than the ‘Free Love’ of the 60s and 70s or the ‘Always wear a condom’ of the 80s and 90s did, it betrays a generation and just imposes a lesser version of morality that will ebb and flow with the tide of the prevailing fashions. Christianity has its moral code, it’s held the same one a bit longer than Mr Brown, my question then would be why there is room for you’re version of morality but not mine, just because you think yours doesn’t offend anyone? That’s not morality it’s keeping your head down.


I’m with you on the semolina.

16 June 2008 at 11:54  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

hear o israel ... 2,973 innocent people died the most horrible deaths imaginable on the 9th September 2001, and you come here to Cranmer's Blog to joke about it?

16 June 2008 at 12:31  
Blogger Mark said...

An orthodox friend of mind shared this anecdote with me: when two men were married in an Orthodox church in Western Russia, the priest was defrocked, his temple was bulldozed to the ground and the wreckage burnt.

16 June 2008 at 14:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I guess you missed the "Natural"part of my comment. Two people of the same sex cannot NATURALLY produce offspring. Only through artificial means can this be done. So...without outside help, there is NO second generation. All will be extinct!


16 June 2008 at 14:48  
Anonymous Jeremiah said...

Homosexual "Marriage" ICHABOD

by 2012 the nation will be destroyed

16 June 2008 at 19:56  
Anonymous James said...

Your Grace,

I'm sure you have thought of this matter, and have an answer ready to the question. I would like to hear it. The question is: Why, if the Church of England has become so depraved and her leaders do nothing to discipline the guilty, do you not leave?



16 June 2008 at 23:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good for them I say.

I'm happy for them. If only the Church would extend this to every couple.

17 June 2008 at 01:15  
Anonymous Voyager said...

is a re-writing of history eclipsed only by Henry's re-writing of Christianity.

I was unaware that Henry VIII had altered any of the Four Gospels of The New Testament. As for seizing the property of the Church donated by Norman barons who had invaded England in 1066, he was acting like every other European prince seeking access to the "licensing fees" flowing in gold to Rome from each kingdom.

In economic terms the funds sent to Rome were not unlike the transfers to the EU we make so cheerfully today.

There is no doubt that without the Reformation England would not have industrialised or that outside the Anglo-Saxon world industrialisation was instigated by The State and not by individuals.

The Church of Rome is not the embodiment of Jesus Christ nor guardian of its scriptures having amended them so assiduously over generations.

You might consider the events of 1526 in Rome or the role of France and Spain which essentially had the papacy in their grip. Hardly the stuff of Christian virtue.

Christianity is basically Judaism with 10 Mitzvot and open to Gentiles - I hardly think Popes like Julius or Clement were role-models of Christian virtue - more political pawns of France

The issue returns however to the power of a Church of England priest to dispense with agreed policy of The Church; and also to undermine the principles of the Christian reflect on Canon A5

“The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.”

The priest is now an Article XXVI problem and should be removed forthwith. He cannot make fact that which is not in accordance with Scripture and is antithetical to the whole of Jewish and Christian doctrine.

In fact his church should be re-dedicated

17 June 2008 at 07:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he really is the rector, as reported, then there's not much anybody can do, is there?

Or did I misunderstand my canon law?

17 June 2008 at 13:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it sad, but funny, that so-called Christians spread the love of Christ by making such comments as:

"in the begining there was adam and steve was made from adams rib??

i dont think so??

if the homosxual element want there cake and eat it why not set up there own church call it st wussie or somthing"

Leaving aside the fact that the old "Adam and Steve" chestnut isn't exactly the strongest argument in the book, I am horrified by the lack of empathy in communicants of this blog.

I ask them to consider whether they would be so openly and readily homophobic if someone they loved were gay? (eg a brother, sister or best friend). Consider also whether or not they would feel this way if they were gay themselves. What is a man who loves God supposed to do if they simply cannot help the fact that they are attracted to men? And before the irritating "that's fine, just don't ever do anything with other men" repsonse comes through: the straight responder ought to consider how they would feel if told never to engage in any activity with memebers of the opposite sex. That is the equivalent.

And I speak as a Christian. I love God and I respect the Bible greatly. I am just capable of seeing that it is not literal from start to finish, and that it was written by men, and centuries ago at that. Not everything in it is an absolute and universal truth.

23 June 2008 at 18:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


23 June 2008 at 22:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older