Sunday, January 16, 2011

The ‘rebel’ Anglican bishops ‘defect’ to Rome


The Vatican has finally announced the erection of a Personal Ordinariate within the territory of England and Wales for those groups of Anglican clergy and faithful who have expressed their desire to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The Decree of Erection specifies that the Ordinariate will be known as the ‘Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham’ and will be placed under the patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman.

So, it’s all about Mary.

And a dead priest/cardinal who now intercedes on our behalf.

Nothing very ecumenical about the nomenclature.

These three bishops have become the founding members of the world's first Ordinariate, a church-within-a-church created by Pope Benedict to permit Anglo-Catholics to worship under the aegis of Rome whilst retaining some Anglican traditions, like the Prayer Book and liturgy.

Yet His Grace has yet to see the form of this Prayer Book. For there is no Anglican prayer book other than that which has been approved by Parliament. And one gets the feeling that there are some aspects of His Grace’s book and one or two bits of the XXXIX Articles which aren’t going to make it into the Ordinariate, despite them being quintessentially Anglican.

We are told that there are more converts to follow – about 50 priests and 30 groups of parishioners from the Church of England are expected to enter full communion with Rome. Doubtless other groups of Anglicans in Australia and North America will follow as ordinariates are established in other parts of the world.

No doubt this will be a cause of further unseemly triumphalism and anti-Anglicanism.

But many Anglo-Catholics oppose their erstwhile colleagues' conversions, not least because they seem somewhat precipitous when the Church of England has not finally settled what sort of provision there will be for those who oppose women in the episcopate: there is, as yet, no legislation on the matter.

Having waited 15 years, a few more months would not have done them any harm.

According to The Times (£), these bishops are ‘rebels’. Yahoo and C4 talk of ‘defectors’. The Scotsman and The Independent place the emphasis on ‘ex-bishops’. The Mail talks of ‘history made’ and The Guardian talks of ‘history overturned’, while The Telegraph and BBC simply go with the fact of their ordination.

Or is it ‘simply’?

By focusing on their ordination, we are starkly confronted by the inescapable belief of these men that they had never previously been ordained. We are left in no doubt that these three bishops had to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests because the Vatican does not recognise Anglican ordinations. Married Anglican priests are accepted but married bishops may not retain their higher status.

It is strange, if not a little ironic, that they have exchanged a church with gender issues for a church with gender issues; a church in which being a woman is a bar to higher office for one in which the possession of a wife is a bar to higher office.

It is also strange that these shepherds of the sheep have dedicated the best part of their lives to the belief that the Church of England is the continuing Catholic Church in England, albeit reformed after the break with Rome. If the Church of England were part of the One Holy and Apostolic Church, and they were ordained into it, in what sense was that ordination so ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ that they require ‘re-ordination’, which is really a primary ordination?

Such faithful men have been a bulwark in the Church against both liberals and Protestants. It is sad indeed that they choose to depart instead of fighting their theological corner.

Have they really asserted the invalidity of Anglican Orders and negated a lifetime of ministry over the trivial obsessions of the world with gender and sexuality?

It’s hardly the stuff of schism: it is simply not of the order of the sort of debate that used to divide the Church: the divinity of Christ, for example, or the nature of his humanity – the great controversy at the Council of Nicea in AD325; or the ‘filioque’ of 1054; or the erroneous doctrines and blasphemous rituals which precipitated the Reformation in 1517.

We are talking about women.

More than half the human race.

The role of the Bible in addressing the thoroughly modern issues of gender and sexuality is complex, not least because where they are mentioned in Scripture, the authors give little sustained consideration of the issues as they are manifest in the modern world. The nature of a biblical perspective will invariably be affected by the questions posed of the Bible, by the particular hermeneutic employed, and by the unavoidable perspective which each scholar brings to his or her reading. While some may have an instant negative reaction to women priests and bishops, others seek to understand the debate in the different and changing circumstances in which we now live.

That God established an objective, moral order in creation, and continues a work of re-creation through Jesus, is a source and standard of all that it beautiful, good and true. If such a moral order means anything, there may be no via media on the issue of female bishops any more than there may be on homosexuality. Accepting theological diversity is not the same as tolerating all beliefs and practices, because ultimately the Church is called to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 19:2; Mt. 5:48).

We cannot as Christians just give way to ‘you believe this, I believe that’ approach to being together, or moving apart, in the Church. Nor even can we be content with the rather cheap model of ‘reconciled diversity’, meaning benign tolerance, which many Christians find an easier option to the costlier pursuit of real, ‘visible’ unity. We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Presently, nowhere is this more important in the Anglican Communion than in the areas of gender and sexuality.

But His Grace is persuaded that the whole issue may really be a non-issue because the wrong question is being asked. The modern era is sex-and-gender-obsessed: we live in a society which demands ‘rights’ and ‘equality’, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’.

By devoting so much time and effort to gender issues, instead of challenging society by deconstructing the question or focusing on poverty and wealth (for example), the Church is simply showing itself to share the same obsessions as the world. Pauline ethics seem almost utopian to our myopic age, in which it appears at times that one’s identity is made to reside in testes and ovaries. The issue for the Church of England is that this debate has been blown out of all proportion; it is neither a battle for the soul of the church, nor an issue worthy of schism. It is a question utterly peculiar to this era, and those Christians on both sides of the divide might consider toning down the rhetoric and the apologetics, and preaching the gospel instead.

67 Comments:

Anonymous Jonathan Stuart-Brown said...

Your Grace,
It would be fascinating to know how many sermons today in Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal Churches addressed the events in Brazil, Australia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia in the light of Matthew 24, Luke 21, Daniel, Revelations, 2 Peter 3, Genesis 12 verse 3, the war of Psalm 83 which has not yet happened (as Israel has never yet been invaded by all its neighbours at once), and the land promised by God to Abraham but not yet given...but could be in a counter-attack to Psalm 83 invasion.
The map here showing Israel going to The Euphrates is helpful.
http://www.zimbio.com/Christianity/articles/1260
/How+Much+Land+God+Give+Israel+Abraham+Land

A Personal God created the world and describes Himself in Exodus 20 as highly emotional ( a jealous moody God). He has given us a new Apple not to meddle with : Israel and Jerusalem.
Brazil, Australia, Tunisia have all moved against Israel diplomatically in recent months. The US under Obama and it seems The UK are about to do the same, dividing Jerusalem and Israel.
We should be praying our Government does not because what has happened in Australia, Brazil, Sri Lanks and Tunisia can come here with one word from a very Angry God who has finally lost patience with us....and been blessing us because broadly since Oliver Cromwell England, Britain and the USA have been pro-Israel for centuries.
When a movie star gets this point but church leaders and Presidents and Foreign Ministers do not, we can see the times are urgent.
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/01/why-denzel-washington-would-make-a-much-more-successful-us-president-than-obama-and-denzel-washingtons-secret-to-being-a-hollywood-superstar-with-box-office-longevity/

16 January 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger XKawFive said...

Really enjoyed reading this, thanks. I attended a Catholic church for the first time this morning, and I am looking to make it my spiritual home. But it has to be said that you have highlighted certain things very well.

16 January 2011 at 12:29  
Blogger English Dissenter said...

Amen to that.

16 January 2011 at 13:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace states

'The Decree of Erection specifies that the Ordinariate will be known as the ‘Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham’ and will be placed under the patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman.

So, it’s all about Mary.'( It always has been, especially since Augustine and helps establish the 'Great Divide').

'Yet His Grace has yet to see the form of this Prayer Book. For there is no Anglican prayer book other than that which has been approved by Parliament. And one gets the feeling that there are some aspects of His Grace’s book which aren’t going to make it into the Ordinariate liturgy.' (Indeed, Indeed)

'Having waited 15 years, a few more months would not have done them any harm.'(If the CofE is in error on the 'Fundamentals' as a starting point, how will more time help unless you change the question?).

'By focusing on their ordination, we are starkly confronted by the inescapable belief of these men that they had never previously been ordained. We are left in no doubt that these three bishops had to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests because the Vatican does not recognise Anglican ordinations. Married Anglican priests are accepted but married bishops may not retain their higher status.' ('Seperated brethren' are excluded hence the need to recant and ordain in RCC? QED!).

'Such faithful men have been a bulwark in the Church against both liberals and Protestants. It is sad indeed that they choose to depart instead of fighting their theological corner.' (It is because they can 'Fudge' the main issues successfully, intellectually and emotionally !)

'Accepting theological diversity is not the same as tolerating all beliefs and practices, because ultimately the Church is called to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 19:2; Mt. 5:48). '(CofE's tolerance was to establish PEACE not theological Unity as RC dogma and Protestant are irreconcilable unless one side states they are in ERROR!)

'The modern era is sex-and-gender-obsessed: we live in a society which demands ‘rights’ and ‘equality’, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’. ' (The modern era establishes IT'S right to tell God what that order should be, We Know Best!)

'It is a question utterly peculiar to this era, and those Christians on both sides of the divide might consider toning down the rhetoric and the apologetics, and preaching the gospel instead.'
(The Gospel is ' Christ died to pay for the sin's of the world, was BURIED and was RISEN by God the Father to show His Son had accomplished His mission'. We are ALL therefore called to believe this and by doing so, be FULLY saved! Anything else is Another Gospel, Another Christ!!)
So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

16 January 2011 at 13:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace states

Part 1
'The Decree of Erection specifies that the Ordinariate will be known as the ‘Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham’ and will be placed under the patronage of Blessed John Henry Newman.

So, it’s all about Mary.'( It always has been, especially since Augustine and helps establish the 'Great Divide').

'Yet His Grace has yet to see the form of this Prayer Book. For there is no Anglican prayer book other than that which has been approved by Parliament. And one gets the feeling that there are some aspects of His Grace’s book which aren’t going to make it into the Ordinariate liturgy.' (Indeed, Indeed)

'Having waited 15 years, a few more months would not have done them any harm.'(If the CofE is in error on the 'Fundamentals' as a starting point, how will more time help unless you change the question?).

'By focusing on their ordination, we are starkly confronted by the inescapable belief of these men that they had never previously been ordained. We are left in no doubt that these three bishops had to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests because the Vatican does not recognise Anglican ordinations. Married Anglican priests are accepted but married bishops may not retain their higher status.' ('Seperated brethren' are excluded hence the need to recant and ordain in RCC? QED!).

So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

16 January 2011 at 13:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Men in frocks are upset that women in frocks want to join their ranks.

So they have defected to be with men in frocks who don't believe in having any relations with women whatsoever.

Just the spiritual home I have been seeking because

Im a lumberjack and im okay
I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspendies and a bra
I wish I'd been a girlie
Just like my dear papa

16 January 2011 at 13:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace further states

Part 2

'Such faithful men have been a bulwark in the Church against both liberals and Protestants. It is sad indeed that they choose to depart instead of fighting their theological corner.' (It is because they can 'Fudge' the main issues successfully, intellectually and emotionally !)

'Accepting theological diversity is not the same as tolerating all beliefs and practices, because ultimately the Church is called to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 19:2; Mt. 5:48). '(CofE's tolerance was to establish PEACE not theological Unity as RC dogma and Protestant are irreconcilable unless one side states they are in ERROR!)

'The modern era is sex-and-gender-obsessed: we live in a society which demands ‘rights’ and ‘equality’, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’. ' (The modern era establishes IT'S right to tell God what that order should be, We Know Best, irrespective of what God states how He wants that order to be!)

'It is a question utterly peculiar to this era, and those Christians on both sides of the divide might consider toning down the rhetoric and the apologetics, and preaching the gospel instead.'
(The Gospel is ' Christ died to pay for the sin's of the world, was BURIED and was RISEN by God the Father to show His Son had accomplished His mission'. We are ALL therefore called to believe this and by doing so, be FULLY saved! anything else is Another Gospel, Another Christ!!)

So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

16 January 2011 at 13:18  
Blogger Doorkeeper said...

Great post, Your Grace. Thank you.

16 January 2011 at 13:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

By the way, there is mention in the New Testament of only 2 types of people as Priests.
1. Jesus Christ, Our High Priest and Mediator.
2. All believers are called Kings/Priests, no mention of a specific ordination of 'singled out believers' to function as such for the Body of Christ.
Priesthood is pertaining to the accomplishing of forgiveness/covering of sins by blood sacrifice for himself and/or others!
A true non sequitur after Christ's once for all sacrifice!

We have a High Priest able to accomplish this for us who is seated at the right hand of the Father!

So Indeed Says KINGOFHIGHCS

16 January 2011 at 13:30  
Blogger margaretkiaora said...

Lysistrata by Aristophanes (In a Message like translation for the likes of me) might serve useful reading for half the population.But which half?

16 January 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

The "Ordinariate" would appear to be similar to the Uniate Church, which uses Orthodox Eastern Rite liturgy and customs but owes obedience to the Pope.

The Right Reverend gentlemen will, I fear, find that they have, at best, jumped from the fire of "liberalism" into the frying pan.

Traditionalist Roman Catholics are fighting a rearguard action against the
"protestantising" English hierarchy. One doughty campaigner is the monthly CHRISTIAN ORDER.

If you are Googling Christian Order for the first time, go to the June 2008 editorial about Mr. Blair. Apart from a couple of swipes at the Revd. Ian Paisley, I think most of Your Grace's flock would find it...well... stimulating.

16 January 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger Owl said...

A very good post once again, YG.

Perhaps another perspective is called for.

I have often wondered why the Catholic church seems to get the CofE failures.

It was insult enough to be in the same fold as Blair and now this!

Why doesn't the CofE deal with it's own problem children instead of dumping the problems onto the Catholics.

We have not deserved this cavalier treatment.

Can we give them back?

16 January 2011 at 13:47  
Anonymous len said...

So these Bishops who have 'jumped ship'(presumably because they think it might be sinking)have been place under the authority of a Woman(Lady of Walsingham)and the bones of a dead defector(Cardinal Newman.)
What is even more interesting these defectors have placed themselves under the greater authority of the Catholic 'Mother of God ' Mary.

I bet none of them can see the irony of it!.

16 January 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger Bob Gibson said...

The real crux of the matter is the weak leadership of the Anglican Church over several decades.

The present Archbishop is clearly a very distinguished academic, but has sadly shown himself to be yet another wishy-washy leader giving no direction whatsoever.

Until the senior clergy in the CofE wake up and show some backbone and direction, the Anglican Church will continue to have little relevance to anything or anyone.

It saddens me to make these comments as the UK in particular needs some real moral fibre and direction from somewhere at present.

Alas it is lacking from both secular (politicians - of all shades) and from spiritual leaders and is one of the reasons four our continued decline.

The Victorian church gave much attention to the social and cultural needs of its flock and was a force to reckoned with as a result.

Come on Archbishop Rowan et al - waken up or it will be too late.

16 January 2011 at 14:20  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt-innuendospotter said...

'Erection' of a personal ordinariate?

Ooh! Matron!

16 January 2011 at 14:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bred in the Bone

If your photograph is really you, then believe what you want mate but you ain't headin for no relationship with women either

16 January 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Anonymous said...
Bred in the Bone

If your photograph is really you, then believe what you want mate but you ain't headin for no relationship with women either

Is that Chrissie Hynde?

Oh you so want me!

Shit gotta go the misses is looking over my shoulder...

16 January 2011 at 17:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was an Anglican Priest and I went "over to Rome" in 1989 as a layman.
I was right about ladies as servers. I was right about Ladies in the Choir: they really have driven the men, and more important for all our futures, boys, out - in our Church at least.
I was right, too, about the witchcraft element because gaia and other such rubbish quickly became fashionable. Is it now in the CofE? Only asking.....
I was also right about the problem of Authority too. Who says what goes? The Holy Spirit? The words of the Bible? Or is it the will of the Bishops? What about the Universal Church's will?
No. None of these say the same things about divorced women bishops, do they.
And Gay clergymen being made Right?
Whatever next?
Children Bishops?

16 January 2011 at 17:13  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Recreant or rescusant; it makes no odds, they chose to run rather than stay and fight their corner.

Your Grace's last paragraph says it all!

16 January 2011 at 17:31  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Sounds like a typical playground squabble to me Your Grace.
I wish them all the best in their new homes, hope it all goes well for them & their other halves.
Personally I thought their investiture looked quite comical with their wives helping to dress them, rather like kids first day at nursery with mum helping with the uniform.
Ah well, I'm glad I'm just a plain old preacher without all the rigmarole of religous bits & bobs. I'll just take your advice & keep on preaching the gospel to those that will listen.

16 January 2011 at 18:03  
Anonymous len said...

Anon,(17;13)

If those fleeing the Anglican Church are doing so because of 'femalephobia' and the 'threat'these females present to them I would say that'the celibacy issues' (and the underlying problems with that) present as great an issue with the Catholic Priesthood (Probably more!)
Out of the frying pan into the fire springs to mind.

The World is ever downward spiralling mess and the Gospel(as H G points out) should be the no1 priority, not jumping into the Tiber like so many lemmings!.
I cannot understand the thinking of these Bishops who leave the Anglican Church(because of Women) and place themselves under the authority of 'the Mother of God'.
The Anglican leadership needs to re affirm the 39 articles and to'boot out'all closet Catholics, (the leaven of the Pharisees) then perhaps they could rebuild the Anglican Church.

16 January 2011 at 18:08  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"... the inescapable belief of these men that they had never previously been ordained"
Well, it escaped me.
"Have they really asserted the invalidity of Anglican Orders...?"
No, not really.
You might have the charity to credit these three with some integrity and intelligence. A very sour piece and not worthy of you.

16 January 2011 at 18:28  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Little Black Sambo

Never mind their intelligence, but as to their ''integrity'' - what integrity??? They have been cosseted, bribed and 'turned'...

... they have picked-up their respective balls and run off the pitch. This is conscience?

16 January 2011 at 19:12  
Anonymous bluedog said...

A superb article, Your Grace.

For the RCC its a Bogoff (buy one, get one free) situation. Old married Anglicans are unlikely to be either gay or active paedophiles.

Benedict must be breathing a sigh of relief.

16 January 2011 at 19:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Instead of fighting their theological corner" - where have you been for the last twenty years? There is myopia and there is complete stupidity; I'm afraid your comments fall into the latter category.

16 January 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Your Grace, there would have been more time for 'preaching the gospel' if the promise of an honoured place for traditionalists in the Church of England had been kept. It was the gender issue of Women and the Church (WATCH) that ensured the promise was broken. Conscience and charity are not words they are comfortable with. You write of the result.

16 January 2011 at 20:12  
Blogger AndrewWS said...

I went to Fr Andrew Burnham's first mass as a Catholic priest at the Oxford Oratory today.

A splendid occasion.

The pew sheets described it as a 'first mass' complete with quotation marks.

I somehow suspect that the Oratorians do not believe that these men have never been priests before.

16 January 2011 at 20:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It is rather like VMWare with The Pope running a Virtual Machine Church using its own Operating System under his OS.

It has some very interesting intellectual aspects which I am sure are clearer to Pope Benedict than to the lesser intellects that surround him, and I wonder what lies beyond his mortal span.

Your post is good Your Grace, but we must see that the Church of England has been overwhelmed by heretics who have undermined its Protestant Sola Scriptura by an aversion to anything in print and an appeal to everyday Sentimentalism.

Sentimentalism is the curse of Western society and have replaced Reasoned Thought with Unreason and the Passions of the Mob, for which latter read Media

16 January 2011 at 20:52  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

I'm confused, these 3 chaps depart the anglican church because they disagree with the ordination of women, in other words they feel its unbiblical and they want no part of it. Okay, fair enough, but the puzzling thing is they have gone to a church that stores dead peoples bones in its foundations as relics, it prays to saints and to mary, it preaches purgatory and indulgences along with transubstiation, it claims popey is Gods representative on earth and that a priest can forgive sins,that wives and young women must confess their sexual secrets to strange men, that peter was a pope and I could go on but you get my point. They were romanists to start with. Good job salvation is not in either church but in the death and resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man. Repent Rome, repent Canterbury he is coming soon, your dollars and euro will soon collapse, youe empires will crumble, He is coming soon, repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ alone.

16 January 2011 at 21:01  
Blogger Chelliah Laity said...

Did you see 'them' being dressed by their wives who were all wearing identical Brown coats? All very strange and incomprehensible.

16 January 2011 at 21:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

margaretkiaora states 16 January 2011 13:40

'Lysistrata by Aristophanes (In a Message like translation for the likes of me) might serve useful reading for half the population.But which half?'

This would be easily resolved by the 'other half' today.

Removal/cancelling of store/credit cards and refusal to drop off and pick up from Bluewater et al?
Peace is duly restored so no need for Kinesias and others to suffer!

Hurrah!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

16 January 2011 at 23:25  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

There's a lot of catty chat going around at the moment. Ien has exemplified it quite well. So many in the Church of England are ignorant of its position within the Christian setting. Henry VIII only desired a break with Rome. He recoiled at "protestant" theories, going so far as to maintain catholic doctrine in statute. By the time Elizabeth I was on the throne there had been all manner of ping-pong experiments with where English devotion should be. She wanted both elements, and those in between, to worship in harmony. The truth is, though, that catholics and evangelicals (protestants) have seen the Church of England as a different entity.

Now a lot is being said about the Ordinariate, a lot of which is utter nonsense. This is not a church within a church, but an aspect of catholicity. Those within it will be Anglican Catholics not Roman Catholics, although many may wish to be called simply catholics. The "Anglican Patrimony" is at the heart of the Ordinariate. It has been said that this is hard to define. Personally, I couldn't say what makes me feel Anglican. John Betjeman had his ideas, others have theirs. But this ordinariate is about being Anglican in communion with Rome. Quite revolutionary, really. The Pope has not asked for the former Anglican bishops to renounce anything, ministry or whatever. Simply, the ordinations are a confirmation of catholic sacramental belief. There may have been an element of doubt. The "utterly null and void" aspect is about Anglican orders in general. Not to be too picky, but some Anglican priests could well have valid orders if, say, an Old Catholic bishop was present at the ordination. Anglican priests, those remaining, contemplating going or going now, all see their Anglican priesthood as valid.

Andrew Burnham has said that those going into the Ordinariate are at the head of a caravan (as in a caravan of Arab travellers across the desert), some will join later, some may not at all. And some may go back!

This is no time for trite remarks. Too many abound on the internet right now. Many people are wrestling with consciences. It is not personally easy. For fellow Christians to sound harsh and abusive is not welcome.

The issue of women's ordination is not about 'femalephobia' whatever that is. It is about discerning revealed truth, about understanding the sacraments, appreciating tradition, scripture and reason. Those who believe the catholic truths about priesthood believe only men can re-present Christ's sacrifice in the Mass. Protestants freely admit to and adhere to a different understanding.

And "booting out" all closets Catholics? Does that sound like a person who believes in Christian charity?

16 January 2011 at 23:27  
Anonymous Martin Marprelate said...

At least these ex-Bishops have had the courage to leave. The real question is when the evangelicals are going to find necessary fortitude to do the same thing.
The Church of England is rotten to the core. Notwithstanding some fine churches here and there and many extremely hard-working vicars, it is choc-a-bloc full of rationalists, Socinians and homosexuals and they aren't going anywhere, especially since the contributions of the evangelicals keep them going.

God's word to Anglican evangelicals is 'Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins and receive of her plagues.

Cheerio!

Martin
www.marprelate.wordpress.com

16 January 2011 at 23:52  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Outstanding article, Your Grace. Thank you.

I especially liked We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Presently, nowhere is this more important in the Anglican Communion than in the areas of gender and sexuality.

As I think you suggest, that last sentence is germane not because "sex sells," but because pragmatism, cupidity, and lower animality have achieved status way beyond their 'rights' - there used to be a name for that; and it meant more than character assassination.

Humanity only rises above base instinct in light of the Word of God. I've long thought that some animals are ahead of us there - I've known cats, dogs, and horses who seem to carry the Word without words :)

16 January 2011 at 23:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

arden forester said 16 January 2011 23:27
Let me respond as an ex catholic.

There's a lot of catty chat going around at the moment. (As if catholics do not speak similarly or have you not read catholic blogs?) Ien has exemplified it quite well.(Len has stated the impossible and ridiculous position the CofE has landed itself in and the Revealed TRUTH of catholic dogma and to where it's natural conclusion leads or is Mary NOT regarded as the Mother of God by catholics?) So many in the Church of England are ignorant of its position within the Christian setting. Henry VIII only desired a break with Rome. He recoiled at "protestant" theories, going so far as to maintain catholic doctrine in statute.(He was a hypocrite who used this for his own devices, this is history..WE KNOW) By the time Elizabeth I was on the throne there had been all manner of ping-pong experiments with where English devotion should be. She wanted both elements, and those in between, to worship in harmony (Wrong..IN PEACE). The truth is, though, that catholics and evangelicals (protestants) have seen the Church of England as a different entity.(Your point of view is irreconcilable with the position in relation to a peaceful co-existence as the Catholic position is ALWAYS superior to 'seperated brethren' or else why call them seperated and deny or have them excluded from the benefits of Rome's provision)

'But this ordinariate is about being Anglican in communion with Rome.'(What on earth does this mean? It is like the ambassador of UK leaving to become the ambasssador for Iran yet we see him as the ambassador to Iran from the UK..How can this be comprehended..They are NOW catholics? Agreed?)

'For fellow Christians to sound harsh and abusive is not welcome.'
(Was St Paul and other Apostles being 'Harsh and Abusive' by demanding all churches he/they sent epistles to regarding the exclusion of people within the church and unbelievers coming in and spreading errors WRONG and most unwelcome????)
'The issue of women's ordination is not about 'femalephobia' whatever that is. It is about discerning revealed truth, about understanding the sacraments, appreciating tradition, scripture and reason. Those who believe the catholic truths about priesthood believe only men can re-present Christ's sacrifice in the Mass. Protestants freely admit to and adhere to a different understanding.'
(By the way, there is mention in the New Testament of only 2 types of people as Priests.
1. Jesus Christ, Our High Priest and Mediator.
2. All believers are called Kings/Priests, no mention of a specific ordination of 'singled out believers' to function as such for the Body of Christ.
Priesthood is pertaining to the accomplishing of forgiveness/covering of sins by blood sacrifice for himself and/or others!
A true non sequitur after Christ's once for all sacrifice!
We have a High Priest able to accomplish this for us who is seated at the right hand of the Father!)

'And "booting out" all closets Catholics? Does that sound like a person who believes in Christian charity?'
(We are to 'Earnestly contend for the faith', what on earth has christian charity go to do with this??)
So Indeed says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 00:08  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh - and, by the way, Our Lady of Walsingham.

What's going on? Why have they picked on her?

I remember that Henry VII (Henry Tudor) used to visit her shrine - because he had invoked her help when he returned from frogland. He thanked her for victory at Bosworth, by which he retrieved England from the mismanagements of the fifteenth century.

The Tudors, being part Welsh, were of course about the union of Britishness in spite of diversity (H7 having also married Elizabeth of York). However, later Tudors recognized the need to assert our insular individuality and rights: via the Reformation.

Surely what we need is another Reformation--- not more of the euro-worship and sellout that Edward IV so favoured.

How those Tudors do stand out for us: between the RC profligacies that preceded and followed them, and which engulfed us in civil wars.

17 January 2011 at 00:20  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Well, I think my points have proved themselves.

As to this - 'But this ordinariate is about being Anglican in communion with Rome.'(What on earth does this mean? It is like the ambassador of UK leaving to become the ambasssador for Iran yet we see him as the ambassador to Iran from the UK..How can this be comprehended..They are NOW catholics? Agreed?)

Andrew Burnham saw himself as a catholic when in the CofE as I do. I'm still in the CofE. The whole point of the Ordinariate is that Anglicans can be in communion with Rome whilst retaining Anglican heritage. That is what the Pope offered and what it is all about. Is that so hard to grasp or are we on different planets?

17 January 2011 at 00:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

arden forester said 17 January 2011 00:20
'Well, I think my points have proved themselves.'
(How so, I see nothing.EXPLAIN?)
'Andrew Burnham saw himself as a catholic when in the CofE as I do.(Roman Catholic?, then why not just be a RC priest from the start and offer the wafer as a TRANSUBSTANTIATED fact, rather than the CofE that it is only in remembrance and Christ IS NOT in the wafer) I'm still in the CofE.(This is obviously your choice and I am certain they want you to remain) The whole point of the Ordinariate is that Anglicans can be in communion with Rome whilst retaining Anglican heritage.(How is this possible..See just my point regarding transubstantiation as one of many that could be listed) That is what the Pope offered and what it is all about.(Rome will say one thing and do something else WHEN it suits them..I am an ex catholic and know what I was taught and believed!) Is that so hard to grasp or are we on different planets?(The grasping is not the problem, it is IF it is the TRUE position of Rome. It reminds me of the advice given to one of Ronald Reagans advisors regarding dealing with communist Russia' Trust in the Holy Father (John Paul 2), we have been doing this sort thing for nearly 15 hundred years' We know how to accomplish our purpose...Indeed, Indeed)!!

So Indeed says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 00:38  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous @ 19:52

Odd as it might seem to you, ''twenty years'' is not an eternity. By your rule, all Brits would have left this country by now. We don't, we stay and defend as we can. We don't just turn-tail and bog-off out of it. If that, to your mind is stupid, then fine, I'm sure to find myself amongst good company.

Did those three have a burning desire to convert to the See of Rome, or just to be free of the C-of-E? If the former, then fine, it's no business of mine; but if the latter, then they are cowards.

You can stand and fight your corner; you can promulgate your differences loudly, forming your own clique, and fight from within; you can resign and become a private citizen; or you can even form your preferred alternative, and call yourself the 'Real Church of England' or whatever takes your fancy.

What you don't do, is to sell yourself for a mess of pottage in a golden bowl, and a fancy new title!

..........


non mouse @ 0:20 - yes indeed, why pick on Our Lady of Walsingham, which is an Anglican shrine? The Pope's little joke perhaps; or is there some further popish fiendishness yet to come?

17 January 2011 at 01:54  
Blogger Manfarang said...

This serves to remind everyone of the need to separate
Church and State. These bishops may want to join the
Catholic Church but I don't, nor do millions of others
in England. This back door attempt at establishing the
Catholic Church as the state church must be resisted

17 January 2011 at 05:15  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Manfarang @ 05.15, I think you are on to something. Well said.

17 January 2011 at 07:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

He was a hypocrite who used this for his own devices, this is history..WE KNOW)

He was forced to marry his dead brother's widow and a Papal Dispensation was issued to please the King of Spain - an early form of European integration and pooled sovereignty. Spain pestered Mary and Elizabeth too

17 January 2011 at 08:59  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Heavens above, and they say we are animals! For goodness sake stop squabbling like a bunch of monkeys about God -who really knows God?

Concentrate on the immediate threat to law and order if you know what it is.

Then sit down and sort out your issues about God!

I'm still around - will you be if all this carries on?

17 January 2011 at 09:30  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Most of us in Forward in Faith belive in the catholic doctrines regarding the mass. To suggest that all Anglicans (in the CofE and in communion with it or as continuing Anglicans) believe it to be a remembrance only is not so. If it is only a remembrance for some then that is fine. But not all think so.

To say "Rome will say one thing and do something else WHEN it suits them" is a remark that cannot really be countered. If you are so minded OK. I could say the same of you (but I do not know you). It sounds like an element of bitterness has crept in.

17 January 2011 at 10:17  
Anonymous Geoff said...

The people transferring to the Ordinariate are Catholics. So too are many more who still remain, for the time being, in the CofE.

For centuries now there has been institutionalised bigotry and discrimination towards Catholics in the UK from both the CofE and the State.

That has now gone and people are waking up to the fact that it is far better to be a Catholic INSIDE the Catholic church than a Catholic inside a protestant and increasingly marxist/secularist CofE.

These people are not chattels of the CofE - they are free to chose their own path.

Leave them be.

17 January 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger Kevill Davies said...

These Bishops must have realised that it was daft to have a head of the church, a woman, Her majesty the Queen and not be able to have female Bishops. Or are they now saying that the queen is an imposter; that she cannot really be the, 'Defender of the Faith'.

OFF WITH HEADS!

17 January 2011 at 11:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voyager 17 January 2011 08:59
Henry’s first marriage was to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The parents arranged the marriage to form an alliance between Spain and England. There was just one problem. Catherine had been previously married to Henry’s older brother, Arthur, who then died. Since the law of the Church forbade Henry to marry his brother’s wife, the royal parents obtained a dispensation from Pope Julius II. The marriage was approved by the Church.

However, the marriage did not produce the much needed male heir to the throne. In their 21 year marriage, Catherine and Henry had three sons and two daughters, but only one daughter lived past infancy. A cloud of death seemed to hang over the marriage.

Henry had grave doubts as to whether they had done the right thing, and whether the Pope had the right to overrule Church law. After polling the best biblical scholars of Europe, he determined that the marriage would never be blessed by God, and should never have taken place.

Henry requested an annulment from the Pope, which under the circumstances, would normally have been given. But at that time the Pope was Clement VII who was a virtual prisoner of Emperor Charles V. Charles hated Henry, and was putting pressure on the Pope not to do anything for England. The annulment was denied.

Henry was outraged, not only because he was refused the annulment, but because he felt the decision was made on the basis of politics rather than church doctrine.
He still remained Roman Catholic to the end!

Did Henry VIII create the Church of England? In a political sense, yes, since only the king had the power to declare a nation’s independence from the Pope.

But in a spiritual sense, no. It was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury and author of the first Book of Common Prayer, who established the beliefs, the form of worship, and much of the structure of the Church of England according to the pattern of the European Reformers, hence my calling Henry VIII a hypocrite!.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 11:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

arden forester said17 January 2011 10:17
I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant!
How 'catholics' are viewed by Church of Rome?

The Anglican church kept the church structure, and buildings from the Catholic church. Their Holy Communion service is based - loosely - on an English translation of the Mass with all the Sacrificial elements removed. The "High Church" Anglicans are very similar in outward appearance to the Catholic church and their belief system is very similar. The real doctrinal differences are huge, they have lost Holy Orders so have neither a valid priesthood nor a valid Mass; they do not acknowledge the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ. Correct?.

'To say "Rome will say one thing and do something else WHEN it suits them" is a remark that cannot really be countered. If you are so minded OK. I could say the same of you (but I do not know you)(WHERE HAVE I CRITICISED YOU PERSONALLY, I CRITICISED A SYSTEM?..We, as catholics, are forever the 'Victim' are we not, if the conversation is probing). It sounds like an element of bitterness has crept in.( No bitterness has crept in at all. I rejected Rome, not the other way round! However I give an example. If the Church of Rome is the true church established by Christ, why does it continue in vain joint masses with Hindu's, Sikh's, Imams, Witchdoctors etc, praising their practices and beliefs whereas they NEVER proclaim the uniqueness of Christ and that HE is the only way to salvation..Or is salvation an irrelevance to the Roman Catholic Church and that all may arrive at heavens gate by their own routes???
As If Christ and the Apostles would agree to this!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 11:49  
Anonymous Martin from the North said...

YG,

Your best post to date.

On a purely personal level, methinks the issue of gender in the Church sits very comfortably with me. Here's why:-

A good guidepost was once given to me by a sikh (yes, there are other faiths). He said: "If you have a god, follow him. If you don't have a god, be like him".

This is a very intriguing comment and it does challenge one's personal relationship with the Big Feller. Suddenly, I have a one-to-one arrangement which I often overlook. I don't have to go through the middleman (or middlewoman).

In the meantime, I read of an Old Testament God of hellfire and damnation, a jealous and vengeful God, who nevertheless showed a more compassionate and loving side once he'd sent his son to Earth.

Indeed his son preached more of love, grace, forgiveness and salvation and was pretty street-wise in the way he did it, it seemed.

Jesus was well up on the culture of the day and this was demonstrated by him appointing a number of male disciples from a varied background. In Roman Palestine, this would have been the norm for a compliment of leaders.

So, given the guidepost above, I would wager that if Jesus were to start his mortal ministry today, his followers would not only include the professional white male stereotypes but would also include women, gays, lesbians, blacks, disabled, young, old, reformed criminals, etc. ,etc. .... every walk of life in order to ensure that The Message permeates every nook and cranny.

17 January 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

martin from the north said 17 January 2011 12:57

A good guidepost was once given to me by a sikh (yes, there are other faiths). He said: "If you have a god, follow him. If you don't have a god, be like him".(Philosophical gibberish. How can you be like a god if you do not know him. Which god and which types of that god's character do you follow..Shiva, Baal, Satan?)
'This is a very intriguing comment and it does challenge one's personal relationship with the Big Feller. '(Or Woman, Thing therefore!).
'In the meantime, I read of an Old Testament God of hellfire and damnation, a jealous and vengeful God ( Nobody spoke more about Judgment/Damnation, Hell/Hades and The Eternal Lake of Fire than Jesus Himself, stating that He was the Judge of ALL as authority was given Him by the Father!!), who nevertheless showed a more compassionate and loving side once he'd sent his son to Earth.
' (Show me where this representation is correct. Jesus is revealed as God speaking throughout the Old Testament.The Father speaks to NO man!. How can He be Tyrannical in the Old yet loving love, full of grace and forgiveness and offering salvation when He came in the flesh in the New?)
'
Jesus was well up on the culture of the day and this was demonstrated by him appointing a number of male disciples from a varied background.' (Old Testament and New identify's man's role as the Head over the woman and The Lord was consistent as it was His declaration in the Old Testament. He broke lot's of rules that the Pharisee's and Saduccee's attacked Him for, so why not women disciples then.)
'So, given the guidepost above, I would wager (You would lose your bet) that if Jesus were to start his mortal ministry today, his followers would not only include the professional white male stereotypes but would also include women, gays, lesbians, blacks, disabled, young, old, reformed criminals, etc. ,etc (He ignored stereotypes He sought out the lost that were seperated by their sin and offered them forgiveness IF they believed on him, He NEVER condoned SIN). .... every walk of life in order to ensure that The Message permeates every nook and cranny.(You speak of the Ecumenical gospel in that Christ's sacrifice is irrelevant. What you state is a gross misrepresentation Of Christ, The Gospel and both Old and New Testament's).

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 13:37  
Anonymous Bede said...

A few points:

The Queen is not head of the CofE; she is its supreme governor.

Arden Forester says that those in the Ordinariate will be Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics. No - it has been made quite clear that they will be Roman Catholics, with an 'Anglican patrimony' - whatever this may mean in practice. They will not be a Uniat church, in communion with Rome, as are some eastern churches.

Rome is somewhat ambiguous about whether Anglican priests are properly ordained (since Old Catholics assisted in the consecration of bishops in the 20th century). So they 're-ordain' them in case there is any doubt.

Anglican Catholics are not opposed to women priests because they are women, but because they are not priests. If there were women bishops, there could be no acceptance of them (as bishops), or of the priests (men or women) that they ordained. The whole Anglican communion would fracture (as it already has in practice - and into more than two parts).

Rome has always insisted that only it is 'Catholic' - disputed by Anglican Catholics and indeed the Orthodox, who were originally the Orthodox Catholics, as opposed (after the 11th century) to the Roman Catholics. They dropped the word 'catholic' because they did not want to be considered Roman, not because they were not the catholic (universal) Church.

17 January 2011 at 15:42  
Anonymous Martin from the North said...

Anonymous,

"How can you be like a god if you do not know him"

"Philosophical gibberish" only if you fail to understand that there are other faiths, lack of faiths or doubts over faiths. The guidepost is much more profound that would have yourself believe.

Maybe we have lessons to learn from other faiths and non-faiths?

"How can He be Tyrannical in the Old yet loving love, full of grace and forgiveness and offering salvation when He came in the flesh in the New" - I have no idea why, only speculation. You'll have to ask Him that.

I didn't see much genocide, destruction of whole towns and massacres of armies by Jesus in the New Testament (although he did smash up the money lenders' stall in the Temple, I'll give you that). And Revelation is still a far off prophecy at the current time.

"The Father speaks to NO man!" waste of time praying then. Waste of time having any faith at all.

I never said that Jesus ONLY entertained stereotypes. I said the opposite. He assembled a varied group representative of the culture of the time as I am sure he would do now if he began his mortal ministry now. You seem to claim the opposite - that a 21st century ministry by Jesus would appoint only able-bodied, heterosexual, single race, male followers as "man is head over the woman". I would find that very difficult to believe.

"He broke lot's of rules that the Pharisee's and Saduccee's attacked Him " Jesus said that he came to change nothing. Presumably, the rules of the others were wrong and this demonstrates that Jesus was not afraid to challenge a corrupt authority.

"He sought out the lost that were seperated by their sin and offered them forgiveness IF they believed on him, He NEVER condoned SIN". We agree on something, then, athough I wouldn't call being of a different race, or disabled, or a reformed criminal "a sin" although I suspect that you would cast the first stone at anyone you thought was remotely homosexual.

But, given your homophobic, antediluvian and mysogenist views of the world, I guess we're miles away from any agreement on the matter of faith.

17 January 2011 at 16:08  
Anonymous Left Foot Forward said...

@Oswin

>>... Our Lady of Walsingham, which is an Anglican shrine. <<

Ignorance beyond hilarity.

Walsingham has been (and remains) England's *premier* Catholic shrine for well over a thousand years. It was a Catholic pilgrimage centre long before the birth of Protestantism and long before King Henry VIII was even a twinkle in his ancestors' eyes.

There are two pilgrimage centres in Walsingham, the Anglican one being a modern revival not unconnected with the Oxford Movement, which restored the ancient pre-Reformation shrine which had fallen into disuse during the suppression by Parliament of the Catholic Church. The Catholics, once allowed to worship publicly again, were obliged to set up a second centre for their adherents, down the road a bit.

Both centres now flourishing (DG), OL of Walsingham is restored to her former place of highest honour in English (Anglican and Roman) traditional Christianity, as befitting the mother of Jesus.

17 January 2011 at 16:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martin from the North 17 January 2011 16:08
part 1
"How can you be like a god if you do not know him" (How can Shiva, Odin, Zeus,Baal etc be compared to the Creator and Saviour God Jehovah/Christ? Where is the similarity. All others are man-made expressions at trying to grasp what they can never know! Only GOD can reveal Himself to man and He did throughout the Old and New Testament's.

There is NO other God!! So what can false god's (vain imaginations of men) teach me?
Exodus 20:2-6 reads: "
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments..
.
Isaiah 44:6
6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
Isaiah 48:11
11 For mine own sake, [even] for mine own sake, will I do [it]: for how should [my name] be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. ")
'
Maybe we have lessons to learn from other faiths and non-faiths?' (What do you think these lessons are?)
'I didn't see much genocide, destruction of whole towns and massacres of armies by Jesus in the New Testament..(These people/tribes were judged for their wickedness and sins but they were also used by God to punish the Israelites for THEIR unbelief and idolatory, when they adopted these vile practices from others themselves, showing God is Holy and Just and is not a respecter of persons, despite them being His Chosen people! !
Do you not know about Moloch and Baal?
The laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Israelites to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan.

Leviticus 18:21:, Leviticus 20:2-5:, 2 Kings 23:10 (on King Josiah's reform):, Jeremiah 32:35:

God never demanded or destroyed people on a WHIM..Read Jonah!) (although he did smash up the money lenders' stall in the Temple, I'll give you that). And Revelation is still a far off prophecy at the current time.'
So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 18:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martin from the North 17 January 2011 16:08
part 2

'"The Father speaks to NO man!" waste of time praying then. Waste of time having any faith at all.' (We have one Mediator and High Priest between man and God and ALL worship comes through and is directed towards Him as required by the Father and Holy Spirit!. Our SIN separates us from the Father and He has NEVER spoken directly to man anytime, anywhere, EVER! We only know of Him through Jesus who taught Believers how to pray to Him!!)

'We agree on something, then, athough I wouldn't call being of a different race, or disabled, or a reformed criminal "a sin" although I suspect that you would cast the first stone at anyone you thought was remotely homosexual.' (This is Your definition not mine, where does God forbid you to be Disabled, Female, Young, Old, a Reformed Criminal, Black, Brown, Yellow etc. Homosexuality is a sin and stated as such throughout the whole Bible not by My definition of sin but God's!.I am a sinner also but accept God's authority to decide any Offence committed against Him!
I spoke only about Jesus's mission as He was sent to Israel first and foremost as THEIR promised Messiah through the Old Testament, Once rejected, He turned to all men whether Jew or Gentile. He has no mission to return again as it was accomplished at the correct time in History, to the correct people and accomplished the PERFECT work of salvation)

..although I suspect that you would cast the first stone at anyone you thought was remotely homosexual.' (I am a sinner myself, what right have I to cast a stone but to accept I should ask God to forgive me also, without denying God's declaration of WHAT sin is and HOW I am separated from Him by it and as such, condemned myself!)

'I guess we're miles away from any agreement on the matter of faith.'( Sadly, the only True God revealed faith and man-made faith are as far apart as East is from West..Yes, unfortunately it appears so!)

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

17 January 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Left Foot Forward says that the Anglican shrine came before the Catholic one. "The Catholics, once allowed to worship publicly again, were obliged to set up a second centre for their adherents, down the road a bit." Not so. Father Hope Patten was appointed vicar of Walsingham in 1921 and soon placed a statue of Our Lady in the church. Finding that there was a well in the village he placed the Anglican shrine around it. The Roman Catholic National Shrine came about in 1897 as a result of a pilgrimage. This was some time after the Catholic Emancipation Act.

17 January 2011 at 20:33  
Anonymous Left Foot Forward said...

@ Arden Forester,

No, Left Foot Forward is saying that a Roman Catholic shrine existed in Walsingham for more than a thousand years before the Anglican one, and for five hundred years or more before the Anglican Church came into being. The dates you present have little to do with that fact.

17 January 2011 at 22:02  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Re Left Foot Forward ... @22.02.

Therefore I distrust these RC's welcoming us to their fold. ...

These euros and Romans never give up. Nor should we.

17 January 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Point taken and I knew that. However, you did imply that the modern day shrines came into existence with the Anglican one first.

Moot point about when the Anglican Church came into being. Most of us learn that Henry VIII created the church, although he kind of thought he was getting a catholic church without a foreign bishop interfering. A lot of us believe that Ecclesia Anglicana came with St.Augustine. Some think it only really was created with the Act of Settlement. Some think it is reformed, others re-formed. A presbyterian said to me once when I lived in the USA, "the trouble with you Episcopalians is that you don't know whether you are catholics or protestants!" I got the impression he knew which he was.

17 January 2011 at 23:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

if Jesus were to start his mortal ministry today, his followers would not only include the professional white male stereotypes but would also include women, gays, lesbians, blacks, disabled, young, old, reformed criminals, et

Yes but they would be Torah-observant. So if they can obey Scripture and "sin no more" you could well have a point.

What Jesus NEVER professed was that Sinners and Unbelievers should be His Disciples.

So you great insight into The Mind of Jesus give you something denied to other mortals, you must have your own church by now.

Do you happen to know how Jesus would have felt about symbols on coins ? or Islam ? Your insights into 1st Century Judaism are revelationary even if fanciful

18 January 2011 at 07:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

Do you think Prolific Anonymous that Cranmer and Henry ever met ? Do you think Henry was a highly educated man fluent in many languages with his own King's Bible ?

Why do you think Cranmer could freelance and put Henry's kingdom in jeopardy by not implementing the policy of The King ?

You state the simple facts in a long winded form but forget that it was Somerset who set up much of the Protestantism when Regent for Edward VI

Cranmer's Prayerbook was revised by Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon during the Restoration

18 January 2011 at 08:02  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Your Grace,

I have one point of agreement with you and one of disagreement.

The agreement, is that they should not defect to the RC church since they will not find the doctrine there much better in its accuracy.

The disagreement though is they are leaving, for it seems to be the only course of action left. Constantly, the traditionalists (those who argue that scripture is the true word of God and is accurate) are being told to compromise and not cause the split, yet the liberals when asked to show restraint still go about practising that which they know is causing division in the church. It is the liberals who are to blame.

How long must the traditionalists stay and have communion with those that consistently sin and refuse to see the error of their ways when it is brought into the light? Nay, I say the schism has long been delayed for too long, and I long for the true church to rise again.

On a side, you mention that it is about women. Well, if it is then that is terrible. What it should be, and what I believe it to be for most is, "How do you treat the Word of God?" Is it or not, truth in all that it touches upon? Can we really review the scriptures in order to conform to society? This to me is the crux, and it is a perfectly good reason to cause a schism of greater proportions than is currently occuring. I just wish that they came the other direction and thought about joining a body such as the Baptist Union, or Methodists.

18 January 2011 at 09:38  
Anonymous Geoff said...

Kevill Davies said that the Queen is the "defender of the Faith".

Well she hasn't made a very good job of it has she !

Meanwhile the Cofe dumbs down baptism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348133/The-christening-Christianity-Anglican-church-offers-baptism-lite-attract-non-worshippers.html

Is it any surprise people are either moving to the Ordinariate......

.....or just giving up on the CofE - in their millions !

18 January 2011 at 10:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the Queen is the "defender of the Faith".

She has been far less effective than Elizabeth I in so many areas.

This Elizabeth Era has been a wholesale disaster

18 January 2011 at 14:09  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Left Foot Forward @ 16:59

I was about to retort: 'Tell that to The Right Rev'd Lindsay, Anglican Administrator of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham!'

However, I note that you later admit to this yourself...so where then lies the ''Ignorance beyond hilarity'' ???

Do you mean that I dispute your Roman Catholic free-hold? See 'The English Reformation' for details...

You may have opened some R.C kiosk, but you ain't yet (three bishops notwithstanding)dismantled the C-of-E.

Your's is case of 'hope beyond hilarity' more like. As I asked earlier: ''the Pope's little joke perhaps?''

18 January 2011 at 16:02  
Anonymous len said...

A bit off thread but; While on the subject of shrines and statues. When Abraham was in his fathers workshop(his father made plaster statues for the locals to worship as gods)Abraham one night took a stick and broke all the statues, when he had finished he left one statue and put the stick next to it.
His father was furious ,"Who did this",he said . Abraham pointed to the last remaining statue and said "he did".
Abraham`s father said "Of course he didn`t, he cannot do anything.

"Then why do you make them!" said Abraham.

19 January 2011 at 18:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Bravo Len!

21 January 2011 at 03:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older