A'ight, peeps. Here's what's been goin' down.
Every ten years, the clergy of the Anglican Communion meet in England for the Lambeth Conference, where they talk and listen or... something.
The reason I am being so non-descriptive is because the Conference has been so non-descriptive. Honestly, go here for the latest updates. I guarantee you there will be few of any import.
The biggest problems facing the Church are, of course, teh gheys and women as Bishops. The media - and sadly, many so-called "conservative" Anglicans - have been far more focussed on the former than the latter, thanks in no small part to media darling Vicki Imogene Robinson (he literally has two girls' names). That is not to say that the homosexual issue is not pressing, but the fact is, the Apostolic succession has been irrevocably broken with the decision in many dioceses to allow the ordination of women not just as priests but as Bishops. Priestesses are one thing, but when you ordain women as Bishops, you open the floodgates. Now, any male clergyman could be a false one, as a man ordained by a woman has no valid connexion to the Apostles, the first priests.
But don't you dare dissent on this issue, oh no!
The Archbishop of the Episcopal (that is, American Anglican) Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, has said that those who oppose women clergy do so because they dislike women. I s**t you not.
Is she serious? Does Mrs. Schori (and I refuse to give her the title of "Most Reverend") seriously think that the entire argument against women's ordination consists of "EWWW!!! What if the filthy broads bleed all over their vestments?!"
Hardly.
I find it most ironic that Mrs. Schori accuses traditionalists of not liking women, when last I checked, much of her support came from those clergymen who don't like women. (Think about it, you'll get it.)
Actually, if I may be a bit sexist, I still think that much of her support actually came from those who thought she was a man. If you clicked at the link, you'll see what I mean. (And I'm not kidding. My dad showed a picture of her to an older couple at my parish. The wife, not knowing who she was, remarked, "Who's that guy?" Hand to God!)
The lily-livered head of our Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, is of no help. He supported the reconciliation efforts with traditionalists, to be sure, but the fact of the matter is, traditionalists don't just want their dioceses protected from heresy - they want to belong to a world-wide Church which believes the same Catholic and Orthodox Faith as they do without having to fraternise with heretics at all.
Williams has made more idiotic statements than I care to list here, but our friends at Hot Air have archived them quite well.
But returning to the crushing of dissent, look at the "reason" brought about by the Suffragan Bishop-ess of New York (not my diocese, FYI; mine is the Diocese of Long Island):
In the article in the Lambeth Witness, a newsletter produced daily during the meeting by the gay campaign group Inclusive Church Network, Bishop [sic] Roskam said: "We have 700 men here.
"Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives.
"Culturally, many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes the conversation quite difficult."
What. The. Hell. "Outrageous" doesn't even begin to cover it. African Bishops are infuriated, and they should be.
The delightfully named Damian Thompson covered this and made a good point:
"In parts of Africa, Muslims use Sharia law – which permits wife-beating – as an excuse to give their spouses a good smacking from time to time. And this "cultural practice" is not confined to Muslims. Christians do it, too. Some of them are fundamentalist pastors who fly under the Anglican flag of convenience. Church leaders themselves admit that "gender-based violence" is often committed by religious leaders.
We can't rule out the possibility that an Anglican bishop from the developing world metes out "godly punishment" to his wife. But, if such a creature exists, why assume that he is at Lambeth? Isn't he more likely to be boycotting the conference?"
Of course, Thompson, a traditionalist Roman Catholic who is less-than sympathetic to Anglo-Catholics for their often - oh, what the hell - consistent equivocating on issues of doctrinal certitude, is being a bit presumptive and unfair, but he brings us to the most important part of this event: A small group of Bishops from the "Southern Cone" of the Anglican Communion have boycotted the Lambeth Conference because of the presence of Mrs. Schori, who they rightly view as an impostor. Church liberals are quick to dismiss the Bishops as just a small group of malcontents who wish to create a schism, but the thing is, they kinda-sorta represent three out of every four Anglicans in the entire bloody planet.
Also, note the irony that those who oppose the ordination of women and practising homosexuals are compared to those clergymen who opposed the abolition of slavery in the 1800's, but most the traditionalist Bishops are situated in Africa. And now it's the Africans who are the "bigots" who allegedly beat their wives. (And I needn't bring up the fact that my parish is about 85% black and stands firmly with the traditionalists on both issues.)
It may be important to stress the supremacy of male-female relations in the sexual sphere, but the fact is, one's struggles with sexuality can be dealt with in the confessional. The Apostolic Succession is the core Catholic tenet of the often schizophrenic theology of Anglicanism, and it has been for ever breached.
When His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI declared that the Protestant (and Anglican) denominations were not "Churches" because they had violated the Apostolic Succession, there was wailing the world over from Christians offended that the Pope had actually asserted Catholic doctrine. Though my sympathies tend to lie with the Orthodox with regard to the question of who represents the "True Church", I have never found myself more admiring of the Pontiff.
Benedict has consistently held true to the principles of the Church and been unapologetic his support of the traditions lost over the past four decades, such as the Tridentine (or Latin) Mass. He has refused to give in, and he has attacked that which the "progressives" in my non-Church will not touch: "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
Though by no means putting the issue behind entirely, His Holiness has been more vocal than any other Pope on the issue of the awful, detestable, inexcusable clergy sex abuse scandal. It would be fitting to see the likes of Cardinal Law sacked and thrown out of his comfortable digs in Rome, but progress is progress. Benedict should be commended for his actions. Although, I confess, my attitude might very well be different were I a victim or new a victim of such abuse.
Truth be told, I am in a sorry predicament. I can no longer consider Anglicanism my home because the leadership does not follow the Bible or Sacred Tradition. They just make stuff up as they go along. I am drawn to the certitude and centralisation of the Holy See, but I can not square certain Roman Catholic doctrines, namely the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and the ban on married clergy in the West. The Orthodox have the most compatible theology to that of my own - in fact, it is identical - but they are so scattered and so xenophobic, I fear I might not be welcomed there. To be sure, there is a tiny Western Rite branch which welcomes all forms of Catholic worship, but if I were in a foreign place, where would I worship?
Would I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church, with an alien liturgy and an oppressively ethnic homogeneous membership? Or would I go to a Roman Catholic Church which - if I can not find a traditionalist parish - would likely have a hideous, post-modern worship style, peppered with hippy-dippy songs which couldn't be passed off for hymns even if I were hammered out of my wits? Worst of all, what if I were to gamble on an Anglican parish, suckered in by the beautiful architecture and pageantry, only to get to the point of the sermon and hear and see things I know are not true? I guess you could say my heart is Anglican, my brain Orthodox and my soul Catholic.
This is the great dilemma facing Anglo-Catholics. We are the homeless of the Christian family. We can not compromise our values for "unity", yet those who stress that very principle most often do so at the cost of our core values. To think that the once solid, proud Body of Christ is now broken, shattered at the hands of Men.
How prophetic then was Christ's death upon the Cross. He was brought to the slaughter, like a humble lamb, by Men's deeds, and it was Man's hands which rent asunder His Church. One hopes that like Christ, the Church will again rise as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, ready to take on her enemies with the full force of her people, proud and unwavering in their Faith.
It is always darkest before the dawn. I fear I do not see the Sun on the horizon as of now; I pray I do soon. But I do not doubt the rising of the Son. His dawn as come for me and for us all. And it will come again.
Every ten years, the clergy of the Anglican Communion meet in England for the Lambeth Conference, where they talk and listen or... something.
The reason I am being so non-descriptive is because the Conference has been so non-descriptive. Honestly, go here for the latest updates. I guarantee you there will be few of any import.
The biggest problems facing the Church are, of course, teh gheys and women as Bishops. The media - and sadly, many so-called "conservative" Anglicans - have been far more focussed on the former than the latter, thanks in no small part to media darling Vicki Imogene Robinson (he literally has two girls' names). That is not to say that the homosexual issue is not pressing, but the fact is, the Apostolic succession has been irrevocably broken with the decision in many dioceses to allow the ordination of women not just as priests but as Bishops. Priestesses are one thing, but when you ordain women as Bishops, you open the floodgates. Now, any male clergyman could be a false one, as a man ordained by a woman has no valid connexion to the Apostles, the first priests.
But don't you dare dissent on this issue, oh no!
The Archbishop of the Episcopal (that is, American Anglican) Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, has said that those who oppose women clergy do so because they dislike women. I s**t you not.
Is she serious? Does Mrs. Schori (and I refuse to give her the title of "Most Reverend") seriously think that the entire argument against women's ordination consists of "EWWW!!! What if the filthy broads bleed all over their vestments?!"
Hardly.
I find it most ironic that Mrs. Schori accuses traditionalists of not liking women, when last I checked, much of her support came from those clergymen who don't like women. (Think about it, you'll get it.)
Actually, if I may be a bit sexist, I still think that much of her support actually came from those who thought she was a man. If you clicked at the link, you'll see what I mean. (And I'm not kidding. My dad showed a picture of her to an older couple at my parish. The wife, not knowing who she was, remarked, "Who's that guy?" Hand to God!)
The lily-livered head of our Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, is of no help. He supported the reconciliation efforts with traditionalists, to be sure, but the fact of the matter is, traditionalists don't just want their dioceses protected from heresy - they want to belong to a world-wide Church which believes the same Catholic and Orthodox Faith as they do without having to fraternise with heretics at all.
Williams has made more idiotic statements than I care to list here, but our friends at Hot Air have archived them quite well.
But returning to the crushing of dissent, look at the "reason" brought about by the Suffragan Bishop-ess of New York (not my diocese, FYI; mine is the Diocese of Long Island):
In the article in the Lambeth Witness, a newsletter produced daily during the meeting by the gay campaign group Inclusive Church Network, Bishop [sic] Roskam said: "We have 700 men here.
"Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives.
"Culturally, many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes the conversation quite difficult."
What. The. Hell. "Outrageous" doesn't even begin to cover it. African Bishops are infuriated, and they should be.
The delightfully named Damian Thompson covered this and made a good point:
"In parts of Africa, Muslims use Sharia law – which permits wife-beating – as an excuse to give their spouses a good smacking from time to time. And this "cultural practice" is not confined to Muslims. Christians do it, too. Some of them are fundamentalist pastors who fly under the Anglican flag of convenience. Church leaders themselves admit that "gender-based violence" is often committed by religious leaders.
We can't rule out the possibility that an Anglican bishop from the developing world metes out "godly punishment" to his wife. But, if such a creature exists, why assume that he is at Lambeth? Isn't he more likely to be boycotting the conference?"
Of course, Thompson, a traditionalist Roman Catholic who is less-than sympathetic to Anglo-Catholics for their often - oh, what the hell - consistent equivocating on issues of doctrinal certitude, is being a bit presumptive and unfair, but he brings us to the most important part of this event: A small group of Bishops from the "Southern Cone" of the Anglican Communion have boycotted the Lambeth Conference because of the presence of Mrs. Schori, who they rightly view as an impostor. Church liberals are quick to dismiss the Bishops as just a small group of malcontents who wish to create a schism, but the thing is, they kinda-sorta represent three out of every four Anglicans in the entire bloody planet.
Also, note the irony that those who oppose the ordination of women and practising homosexuals are compared to those clergymen who opposed the abolition of slavery in the 1800's, but most the traditionalist Bishops are situated in Africa. And now it's the Africans who are the "bigots" who allegedly beat their wives. (And I needn't bring up the fact that my parish is about 85% black and stands firmly with the traditionalists on both issues.)
It may be important to stress the supremacy of male-female relations in the sexual sphere, but the fact is, one's struggles with sexuality can be dealt with in the confessional. The Apostolic Succession is the core Catholic tenet of the often schizophrenic theology of Anglicanism, and it has been for ever breached.
When His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI declared that the Protestant (and Anglican) denominations were not "Churches" because they had violated the Apostolic Succession, there was wailing the world over from Christians offended that the Pope had actually asserted Catholic doctrine. Though my sympathies tend to lie with the Orthodox with regard to the question of who represents the "True Church", I have never found myself more admiring of the Pontiff.
Benedict has consistently held true to the principles of the Church and been unapologetic his support of the traditions lost over the past four decades, such as the Tridentine (or Latin) Mass. He has refused to give in, and he has attacked that which the "progressives" in my non-Church will not touch: "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
Though by no means putting the issue behind entirely, His Holiness has been more vocal than any other Pope on the issue of the awful, detestable, inexcusable clergy sex abuse scandal. It would be fitting to see the likes of Cardinal Law sacked and thrown out of his comfortable digs in Rome, but progress is progress. Benedict should be commended for his actions. Although, I confess, my attitude might very well be different were I a victim or new a victim of such abuse.
Truth be told, I am in a sorry predicament. I can no longer consider Anglicanism my home because the leadership does not follow the Bible or Sacred Tradition. They just make stuff up as they go along. I am drawn to the certitude and centralisation of the Holy See, but I can not square certain Roman Catholic doctrines, namely the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and the ban on married clergy in the West. The Orthodox have the most compatible theology to that of my own - in fact, it is identical - but they are so scattered and so xenophobic, I fear I might not be welcomed there. To be sure, there is a tiny Western Rite branch which welcomes all forms of Catholic worship, but if I were in a foreign place, where would I worship?
Would I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church, with an alien liturgy and an oppressively ethnic homogeneous membership? Or would I go to a Roman Catholic Church which - if I can not find a traditionalist parish - would likely have a hideous, post-modern worship style, peppered with hippy-dippy songs which couldn't be passed off for hymns even if I were hammered out of my wits? Worst of all, what if I were to gamble on an Anglican parish, suckered in by the beautiful architecture and pageantry, only to get to the point of the sermon and hear and see things I know are not true? I guess you could say my heart is Anglican, my brain Orthodox and my soul Catholic.
This is the great dilemma facing Anglo-Catholics. We are the homeless of the Christian family. We can not compromise our values for "unity", yet those who stress that very principle most often do so at the cost of our core values. To think that the once solid, proud Body of Christ is now broken, shattered at the hands of Men.
How prophetic then was Christ's death upon the Cross. He was brought to the slaughter, like a humble lamb, by Men's deeds, and it was Man's hands which rent asunder His Church. One hopes that like Christ, the Church will again rise as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, ready to take on her enemies with the full force of her people, proud and unwavering in their Faith.
It is always darkest before the dawn. I fear I do not see the Sun on the horizon as of now; I pray I do soon. But I do not doubt the rising of the Son. His dawn as come for me and for us all. And it will come again.
