Wednesday, July 02, 2008

GAFCON and the schism within the schism

Cranmer has received a little report from a communicant who was present at yesterday's GAFCON rally at All Souls, Langham Place. His Grace is not sure if this rally was a conference, thus justifying the continuing use of 'CON' after the acronym 'GAF', but it certainly appears to have been a lively gathering, even a gaff.

There is, apparently, a potential schism within a schism – the thorny and very imminent issue of women bishops. The GAFCON prelates are divided on this issue between the traditionalists and the Evangelicals. The former are staunchly opposed to women bishops while the latter are more open on the issue.

There is no logical end to the fracturing of a Protestantism which ceases to acknowledge the authority of Scripture and the traditions of the Church.


Anonymous mea culpa said...

There is no logical end to the fracturing of a Protestantism which ceases to acknowledge the authority of Scripture and the traditions of the Church.

Then His Grace should repent of schism and return to Catholicism -- the difference between His Grace's Protestantism and the wretched Gene Robinson's is that His Grace's has decayed more slowly.

2 July 2008 at 17:01  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Mea Culpa - Catholicism isn't concerned with the authority of scripture. Doctrine that is biblical is worth dividing over. Reformation Protestantism is a million miles away from Gene Robinson's.

2 July 2008 at 17:24  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Mr ozinop,

“Catholicism isn't concerned with the authority of scripture”

Don’t talk rot see Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One, The Profession Of Faith, Section One, Article 3, Sacred Scripture (All of it). Where you think the Protestant religion got its scripture from and from. The authority of scripture you say! Roman Catholicism established it 1200 years before Luther decided to take an axe to it and Roman Catholicism brought it to England 900 years before His Grace took it upon him self to amend it to suit the needs of the King.

2 July 2008 at 18:28  
Anonymous Oiznop said...

Recusant, I'm not Ozinop, I'm Oiznop. So, where is purgatory? Prayers for the dead? Indulgences? Praying to saints? Mary born sinless? Mary ascending to Heaven? Popes? I'm being polite here, but I really can't see where these inventions came from. Its NOT scripture, so you must have made them up. I can see the argument for transubstantiation which is probably why Luther kept his belief in it, but indulgences etc?

2 July 2008 at 18:51  
Blogger The Black Fingernail said...

The Recusant is right. Protestantism is a cancer and needs to be excised - whether it's caused by Cranmer or Robinson. It's exciting that 1300 Anglicans are about to cross the Tiber. That is the end of the Church of England if only because it has become a national laughing stock.

2 July 2008 at 18:59  
Anonymous Daniel said...

More cancer! Cranmer, at this rate you're going to need an Oncologist for this blog.

2 July 2008 at 19:16  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

OT but I can't see any way of sending you an e-mail. Are you going to post about the withdrawal of the Proctors (i.e. the withdrawal of the University) from the Latin Communion at St Mary's on the grounds that it may offend Mohammedans, etc (or perhaps that it may offend Master Dawkins). I can't find anything about it on the Internet but you must know where to get information.

2 July 2008 at 20:46  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Little Black Sambo,

In the top right-hand corner of His Grace's blog are the instructions for emailing him. There is a hyperlink on the word 'email'.

Mssrs Recusant and Black Fingernail,

If you truly believe that the Gene Robinson 'development' is akin to the Protestant Reformation, you are both deluded. The Reformation was a protest against some of the most ungodly and unscriptural practices and perversions, many of which are now decried by sincere Roman Catholics. The Reformation purged the Church of such practices as the sale of indulgences, to which Mr Oiznop refers. To protest against selling salvation is not remotely on par with objecting to practising homosexuals being ordained to the bishopric.

2 July 2008 at 21:01  
Anonymous Eirenic Rebel said...

The eirenic rebel holds out hope! And you should too, Your Grace. Rome will still need Protestants to lift the boot of Islam from her heavily jeweled decolletage.

As there are no atheists in fox holes neither are there denominations. I would recommend to my Protestant brethren however, that you cross the Tiber prepared with demands that Trent and the unsightly Vatican I, also known as the "chevalier" be "reviewed" and "tweaked."

Why the hapless IX ran screaming to his fortress Gaeta while Your Grace's Queen stayed through the blitz, purportedly pumping fist in air and shouting: "bring it on you Gerry bastards!"

The Faith Once Delivered was preserved by the Reformation. The Reformation saved the RCC from debasing itself beyond restoration.

Rome may not have to worry about ordaining females but she has "pastoral associates" in the pulpits who look suspiciously like Robert Schuller in drag. Her Eucharist confectors are her Pièce de résistance. But she is embarrassingly weak in Word, and our own lack of fidelity to the Word makes her weakness unimportant.

Never surrender, and be assured that if the CoE turns over her property to Rome she will never get it back. Rome will always have the better lawyers.

As we Christians degraded the Word it is our duty to Stand Up For Jesus, any bishop who gets in our way should feel the brunt of our anger. But, I'm afraid, Your Grace, we might be a spent force and that includes the Barque of Peter regardless of her luster.

2 July 2008 at 21:14  
Blogger Scott said...

How on earth can the evangelicals - of which I count myself one - be in favour of them? Have they never read their St Paul? Are they a spent force of faith? Are they, with all their guitars and OHPs and flashing lights, nothing but a gutless modern High Church?

Into the trenches, men!

2 July 2008 at 22:01  
Anonymous mea culpa said...

His Grace writes:

To protest against selling salvation is not remotely on par with objecting to practising homosexuals being ordained to the bishopric.

It was possible to protest without schism. Anglicanism's separation from the living body of Christ led inevitably to decay, as we witness in Gene Robinson. Where is Robinson's Catholic or Orthodox equivalent? And what is Protestantism's solution but more schism? Return to the fold -- the Good Shepherd stretches forth his arms for the erring sheep.

2 July 2008 at 22:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does one decide what is Scripture or how it should be interpreted? As the Ethiopian eunuch said "How shall I understand if no man shall guide me?" What is needed is the Church united around the successor of Peter.

2 July 2008 at 23:08  
Anonymous Eirenic Rebel said...

Gene Robinson as bishop is unspeakably sinful.

So is kissing the Koran which denies the divinity of Our Lord.

And praying with animists is indeed very harmful to the supremacy of Jesus Christ.

Let us dispense with the frippery of avoiding the scandal of the Cross. St. Paul fought against the frippery from the get go. We are no different.

Stand up for Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

You need condemn no one in the bargain. You can even speak of extraordinary grace, but Rome's hospitable syncretism is a problem all the way round.

Staying true to the Word, through thick and thin, is not negotiable.

2 July 2008 at 23:10  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Time has distanced the effects and dulled the senses to the horror that was the reformation in England, but even if what you say is partly true, and aware as I am of the mistakes made in the name of the Church, the utter brutality, the devastation brought on this nation by the greed, hypocrisy, and rapacious appetites of the chief architects, your own alter ego, Henry, Cromwell, the Cecils, Seymores to name but a few was so out of proportion it would not be like dropping an atom bomb to remove a few mosquitoes.

No Cranmer you’re reformation went way beyond correcting a few clerical abuses, kings and Popes had dealt with such matters effectively in the past so let’s not pretend it was anything other than a few greedy men wanting to satisfy their needs at any cost, and what a cost. As for equating Gene Robinson with Protestant Reformation, I don’t recall ever making such a claim, for a start Robinson hasn’t ripped out enough bellies or sent enough Catholics and Protestants to the scaffold as you yourself did to warrant such an epitaph.

“the "REFORMATION," as it is called, was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy, and cherished and fed by plunder, devastation, and by rivers of innocent English and Irish blood; and that, as to its more remote consequences, they are, some of them, now before as in that misery, that beggary, that nakedness, that hunger, that everlasting wrangling and spite, which now stare us in the face and stun our ears at every turn, and which the "Reformation" has given us in exchange for the ease and happiness and harmony and Christian charity, enjoyed so abundantly, and for so many ages, by our Catholic forefathers.”

WILLIAM COBBETT – Protestant Gentleman and MP 1829

2 July 2008 at 23:40  
Anonymous Eirenic Rebel said...

Dear Archbishop, pluriformity is hale.

The Trinity, its Persons unencumbered but for Love. The papacy is heretical because it is, even if unwittingly, a rejection of this.

From England and the crucible of Parlaiment let us remove ourselves to France.

Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity:

He [Voltaire] produced Candide, which exposed the best of all possible worlds optimism as stupid fatalism, ’a cruel philosophy under a consoling name.’ The true solution was ’to cultivate our garden’, that is, oppose and remove evils and use not just our reason but all our faculties to reform society and so to reduce the incidence of suffering…In 1761, Voltaire punctured the prevailing optimism, in reality a form of complacency, the besetting sin of the eighteenth century by pointing out that irrationality still flourished triumphantly, not least among the supposedly supine world of orthodox Christianity. His intervention in the Callas case made him the active conscience of the age, the prophet of justice and reason not in abstract but in concrete and personal form, on behalf of a judicially murdered Huguenot, demonstrably the victim of priestcraft and its legal and political (and social) accessories. What made Voltaire hate Pascal was not the latter’s awareness of the limitation of reason, for he shared it, but the way in which Pascal was used to defend a Christianity still capable of monstrous cruelty. In 1776 there was a further outrage, when the young Chevalier de la Barre failed to doff his hat in respect while a Capuchin religious procession passed through the streets of Abbeville. (It was raining.) He was charged and convicted of blasphemy, and sentenced to ’the torture ordinary and extraordinary,’ his hands to be cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers and to be burned alive. This atrocious case haunted Voltaire for the rest of his life, and indeed it was a reminder to the European intelligentsia that Catholic Europe, despite the apparent triumph of reason, was still basically unreformed.” [pg. 353]

3 July 2008 at 02:23  
Anonymous Eirenic Rebel said...

Archbishop, my last comment, I promise. But for your worried heart and from the greatest theologian the 20th century produced, Karl Barth:

In every age, therefore, the Evangelical decision will have to be a decision for Holy Scripture as such. As such, of course, it is only a sign. Indeed, it is the sign of a sign, i.e., of the prophetic-apostolic witness of revelation as the primary sign of Jesus Christ. Of course, the Church can only read Scripture to hear the prophets and apostles, just as it can only hear the latter to see Jesus Christ with them, and to find in Him, and properly, ultimately and decisively only in Him, the prior direct and material and absolute authority from which its authority depends, on which it is founded and by which it is everywhere and always measured.

But again, it can distinguish between seeing Jesus Christ, hearing His prophets and apostles and reading their Scriptures, and yet it cannot separate these things, it cannot try to have one without the other. It cannot see without hearing and it cannot hear without reading. Therefore if it would see Jesus Christ, it is directed and bound to His primary sign and therefore to the sign of this sign -if it would see Jesus Christ, it is directed and bound to Holy Scripture. In it His authority acquires and has that concreteness as an authority higher than the Church which arrests the apparently irresistible revulsion of obedience to self-government.

We can appropriate God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost and even the prophetic-apostolic witness in general, and then exalt the authority of the Church under the name and in the guise of their divine authority. But in the form of Holy Scripture God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost and the prophets and apostles resist this change. In this form their divine authority resists the attack which the Church and its authority is always making upon it. Whenever this attack is made and seems to have succeeded, it again escapes it. Rightly or wrongly, in loyalty or disloyalty, the Church may say a thousand things expounding and applying Scripture. But Scripture is always autonomous and independent of all that is said. It can always find new and from its own standpoint better readers, and obedience in these readers, even in a Church which has perhaps to a large extent become self-governing, and by these readers a point of entry to reform and renew the whole Church and to bring it back from self-government to obedience.

If the Reformation of the 16th century means the decision for Holy Scripture, conversely we must also say that for every age of the Church the decision for Holy Scripture means the decision for the reformation of the Church: for its reformation by its Lord Himself through the prophetic-apostolic witness which He established and the force of which is revealed and effective because it is written. Let the Church go away from Scripture as such. Let it replace it by its traditions, its own indefinite consciousness of its origins and nature, its own pretended direct faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, its own exposition and application of the word of the prophets and apostles. In the proportion in which it does this, it will prevent that entry upon which its whole life and salvation rests, and therefore at bottom refuse to be reformed.

All kinds of “life,” evolutions and revolutions will be possible in the Church. It can include conservative and progressive thinking in their constant action and reaction. There can be undeniable tensions and party conflicts like those between Catholicism and Neo-Protestantism, or like the internal Catholic battles between Realists and Nominalists, Episcopalians and Curialists, Benedictines and Jesuits, or the internal Neo-Protestant between Orthodox and Pietists, “Positives” and “Liberals.” And these may give the deceptive appearance that the Church is really alive. But it does not live in the inner movement of these tensions. In them we see rather the process of decay to which the Church is at once subject when it ceases to live by the Word of God, which means by Holy Scripture. [Church Dogmatics - The Gospel and the Bible]

3 July 2008 at 02:35  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

thank you mr eirenic rebel !!

i think the problem is women take this as some sort of , glass ceiling problem . I dont actually think women cannot do the job , my problem is does it build up the church ??

i have met two types of ordaiend women , liberal happy clappy , grudging traditionalist. what i always find missing is not so much in the ministry aspect , but its when you ask them theological questions . the women i have met do not represent a sound traditionalist doxology (they cant they are modernisers) , again for me it is the problem , not of women ministering , but putting a slant on the scripture , they have cleaved there position , but some how it feels as though its not whole .
women have some very useful angles on god that men cannot see as you might expect !!, but if we are creating an "edge" based on equality , i have a feeling it may end up becoming the minsitry of "benign pap" .

one newspaper article today declares rowan williams to be honest on the gay debate , citing him as a liberal .
i do not think rowan williams is liberal , he is a very intelligent man . the church of england may indeed be going through a sorting out process , better it does this than drift along losing parishoners , at least it might be able to offer christ /god instead of concept/ reason.

i do not see rowan williams running from the debate , but i do see him trying to not cause injury to advances that are now being challenged.

do we want to scare off up and comming female ministers ?? well no. women hold perfectly good offices in church , give lessons , but if the church needs to become apostollic , it would appear to need a male flavour that can have the liberal challenges/threats agreed before hand.

i dont look down on women on church , but neither do i see the keeping of male ministry , looking down on women either . why cant some things be just be left as being more use in there traditional meaning .

male vicars do not demean women , i mean you might as well attack the faith , for placing this order of things on us in the first place

3 July 2008 at 03:30  
Blogger Scott said...

Yes, the priestess thing is dreadful - for it has surrendered scripture and tradition for the sake of being pleasant and modern; and all of unpleasant modernity is now beginning to swarm through that gap. It will get worse because those who support priestesses etc - i.e. now alas almost everywhere, almost everyone - have knocked down the fortress of Biblical sovereignty, and so have nowhere to run to in defense against all sorts of clever, subtle new heresies that are being launched at us all. They have placed a rubber stopper on the tip of the Sword of the Spirit, and they wonder why they have trouble against the encroaching hordes of darkness.

3 July 2008 at 03:46  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

mea culpa [02 July 2008 22:40] ... writes: Anglicanism's separation from the living body of Christ led inevitably to decay, as we witness in Gene Robinson.

So what have you to say about Vatican II ??? Since when the RCC has in essence allowed another (minority, but politically powerful) faith dictate the conduct and content of its services ... yet you come here to lecture Protestants about separation from the living body of Christ?

Please understand that the Rothschilds banking dynasty, working through paid agents, invented, financed, and now ultimately control modern-day Israel. Almost 90% of Israel's population are in no way shape or form Hebraic, or even Semitic ... they are descendants of a Turkic tribe known as the Khazars that used to dominate the North Caucasus region. The Khazars were converts to Talmudic Judaism (which is the Synagogue of Satan ... see Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9).

This august blog is dedicated to theological debate, and I am no theologian, but gentlemen, we still reside in the material world and theology is of no use unless it can be properly applied there.

mea culpa, you have suggested Anglicanism has inevitably led to decay, as exemplified by Gene Robinson. We understand what you mean, and superficially, you are correct (or at least, you are not wrong). But, I fear (indeed I know) you have completely missed understanding the true nature of the United States of America.

Apart from the simple fact it is constitutionally inclined to breed strong women and weak men it is also a project of the Freemasons. The Federal Government is not part of the Constitutional Republic because the United States was INCORPORATED in 1871.

REF: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (41st Congress, 3d Sess., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted 1871-02-21) is an Act of Congress turning the 10 Square Mile plot known as the District of Columbia, including Washington D.C., into a municipal corporation.

The exact same autonomous situation exists in England ... we call it the Square Mile or the City of London (Westminster W1). The Banking groups headquartered within that square mile are sovereign, and the English Parliament has little (or no) jurisdiction over them. In other words, the City of London is sovereign foreign territory implanted within England, just as the District of Columbia is sovereign foreign territory implanted within the USA.

A corporation is simply an entity which makes its own rules for its own employees and for its own structural operation. The US government is in truth located within a ten acre parcel of property in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia) that sits outside of the United States of America. Astonishingly, it is a corporation (controlled by international banks such as the Rothschilds, Sciffs, Morgans, etc) that has taken on the role of a quasi-government, yet it has no legal authority to do so (i.e., according to the Constitution).

It is the Federal (Incorporated) Government that has been responsible for promoting the Jewish politico-scientific agenda for the past 100 years ... in fact the rot began with Woodrow Wilson's "progressive" administration of 1912, which entered the White House with only 42% of the popular vote, but with an electoral college landslide. This agenda has included the destruction or castration of Christianity.

Wilson and his administrative cronies, assumed power whilst in public awe of people like Mussolini ... they also supported the Soviet October Revolution. Their political ethos was rational-progressivism. Its key concept was "experimentation." Their ethos was philosophically and morally justified by the language of Nietzschean authenticity, Darwinian evolution, and Hegelian historicism, and it was explained by William Jame's pragmatism. They believed that because scientific knowledge advanced by trial & error, so too must human evolution (i.e., via experimentation). Therefore they read history according to Hegel; progressing through the interplay of thesis and antithesis. Thus social experiments on a vast scale (feminism, homosexual freedom, indiscriminate miscegenation, scientific rationalism replacing theology, Dewey's theories on education, etc) were pursued vigorously. Remember, I am talking here of the USA and NOT Nazi Germany or the Soviet Republic! The Woodrow Wilson administration was the world's first FASCIST government.

Walter Lippman (who also authored most of Wilson's famous Fourteen Points) declared that our understanding of such ideas as democracy, liberty, and equality would have to be rethought from their foundations "as fearlessly as religious dogmas were in the nineteenth century." [Ref: The Missionary, Ronald Steel, New York Review of Books, 20 November 2003].

You have blamed Anglicanism for moral decay in the West. But can you answer these charges of failure against Catholicism? Pope Paul VI's encyclical on Contraception? The Second Vatican Council's document on non-Catholic religions, which acquiesced to the Jews because of the RCC's residual shame from WW-II?

Post the Second Vatican Council, when the Catholic Church stopped opposing the Jews and their perpetually revolutionary agenda, everybody suffered.

From 1934 up until 1965, there was something called the Production Code and the Allegiance of Decency, which the Catholics had used to keep the Jews of Hollywood in line. In 1965 the Jews broke the code, and within 5 years we had explicit pornographic movies such as "Deep Throat" being shown worldwide, even in neighbourhood theatres. 1970 was also the year of the micro-mini skirt, vaginal deodorant, and the "Roman Bath" 'scene' amongst New York City's and California's Gays, with some homosexuals having over 300 sexual partners in just one year! Get the picture?

The same thing has happened in politics (both John and Bobbie Kennedy were Catholics, and those who have studied their assassinations properly are convinced Jewish personages were centrally involved).

Since the 1967 and the Six Day War, followed by the era of Henry Kissinger, we have witnessed the almost complete takeover of US Foreign Policy by so-called "neo-Conservatives." That is another obfuscating label like Bolshevism that conveniently hides the common identity of the majority participants ... namely Jews. This is why America invaded Iraq ... not because of oil or weapons of mass destruction. It was orchestrated by the organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Begun and organized by Zionist Jews in Washington.

The proper definition of a Jew is any Hebrew who has rejected Christ. This is why the Talmud emerged just a few centuries after Christ, to enable the Rabbis to keep ordinary Jews under their control and keep them xenophobic, nationalistic, and anti-Christian.

The nature of the Jewish 'God' can be summed up by DEUTERONOMY 7:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess, and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Deuteronomy does NOT describe a Christian God. Christians do not associate themselves with the wrath and bloodlusts of Jehovah or Yawah. We fight against this incarnation.

Perhaps, under the circumstances, and considering the evidence I have just supplied ... 'mea culpa' would like to consider retracting his misguided slur of Anglicanism, and offer an apology?

Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, Methodists, Calvinists, et al, we are all in this together! Let us unite as what is common between us far outweighs that which divides us ... and further more, the barbarians' main legions are already knocking at the gates (trying to join up with their agents who are already circulating amongst us, sowing discord). We failed to strengthen those gates the last time we had an opportunity, and now the hinges are creaking. In other words, the time for talking is nearing an end, as the time for action beckons.

3 July 2008 at 09:45  
Blogger Scott said...


3 July 2008 at 12:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older