Many Years!

Via T-19 the news that the well known champion of classical Anglicanism Edith Humphrey is to be received into the Orthodox Church on the Feast of Pentecost. May God grant her many years.

A few recommendations...

From time to time I note some good posts on other web sites which I think are deserving of attention and a "bump." I thought I would pass along a few that I think are worth taking a look at.

Communion is like sex. Really. Read this amusing but very pointed discussion of the current mess in the Anglican Communion by Perry Robinson over at Energetic Procession As a side note check out the cartoon in the post that immediately followed the one linked. It's so funny in part because it's also so true.

Fr. Joseph Huneycutt has an interesting article up about Joel Osteen and the peculiar (and heretical) brand of so called prosperity theology and positive thinking which they push. I will refrain from commenting on the matter since anything I might write has probably already been posted over at Orthodixie.

The latest installments in "As the Orthodox World Turns" can be found over at Ben Johnson's Western Orthodoxy where we first find the announcement that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is going to be taking over the parishes of the Jerusalem Patriarchate (there are only a handful in N. America) in a deal worked out between the JP and the EP. OK... No big deal I am thinking. Just a little rearangement of the administrative furniture, right? Silly moi. The second part comes only a short while later and this is where the other shoe drops. Apparently the parishes in question are break offs from the Antiochian Archdiocese and were never canonicaly released. Met. Philip is more than slightly offended by the GOA's establishment of a Greek supervised Vicarate for Arab Orthodox Christians over whom they appear to have no canonical authority. Anyways you can read the whole sordid business at the links above. I will limit my own editorializing to an observation that where the subject is the extra-canonical jurisdictional infighting here in N. America it is my considered opinion, with all due respect to his office, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate's record over the last few decades suggests that he has been more a part of the problem than the solution.

Finally I recommend Fr. Stephen's excellent essay on an Orthodox approach to reading Scripture which can be found over at his blog Glory to God for All Things. In fairness I have to say that if I were going to give a bump on my own blog everytime I read something Fr. Stephen wrote that I was really impressed with, Ad Orientem would be reduced to a bill board for Fr. Stephen's blog. This is one of the few blogs I make a point of checking more or less daily.

Is the Episcopal Church a Truly Catholic Church?

Fr Kimel (aka the Pontificator) asks and answers the question.

In the early 70s the large majority of catholic Episcopalians firmly opposed the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, believing that it was contrary to the will of Christ and the ecumenical tradition of the Church. When the 1976 General Convention decided to permit the ordination of women to the priesthood, most Anglo-Catholics decided to remain within the Episcopal Church and to fight for a reversal of church policy. What happened? The older generation retired or died. The younger generation, including the present writer, eventually got with the national church program. Seminaries and bishops carefully weeded out the opponents of women’s ordination from the prospective ordinand pool. Thirty-five years later we find that a new orthodoxy has been successfully imposed and the opponents of women’s ordination marginalized. Twenty years ago one might have been forgiven for thinking that it was still possible to reverse this situation, but surely no one can persuasively argue this any longer. Something very similar is now happening on the question of the moral legitimacy of same-sex unions. The goodness of same-sex unions is now widely affirmed in the Episcopal Church. New ordinands are expected to support this policy and the doctrine underlying it. Perhaps freedom to oppose this policy is still allowed in some dioceses (presumably Texas); but the number of such dioceses declines each year. Within a decade or two Episcopal priests will no longer be permitted to teach the catholic understanding of Holy Matrimony nor to declare the immorality of same-sex unions. In the inclusive Church, even tolerance has its limits. The recent history of the Episcopal Church demonstrates the harsh truth of Neuhaus’s Law: “Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it sooner or later will be proscribed.”

This essay is must reading. I strongly recommend it in its entirety.

Hat tip to T-19

Well... They did it.

It's not a big surprise. But it is still one of those moments where at the risk of triumphalism I just want to scream "THANK GOD I AM ORTHODOX!!!"

For our Anglican brothers and sisters who have had enough; the welcome mat is out and we are leaving the light on for you.

GAFCON: A Communion is (Re)Born

The meeting in Jerusalem of the conservative Anglican Bishops who are fed up with the liberal heretics running the Anglican Churches in most of the developed countries (yes that includes most especially TEC/ECUSA) have issued a communique that in all but name has created a new communion. The "Jerusalem Declaration" as it is being called is decidedly Protestant. But it is at least unambiguously Christian.

They mince no words in calling out by name the "heterodox" churches in N. America and making it clear they will have no communion with them. They also give a polite nod to the See of Canterbury right before declaring that it is more or less irrelevant. Later they make it clear that they are moving forward and creating their own governing structure which will adhere to the classical Anglican doctrines as reflected in the 39 Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book. This is unlikely to sit well with so called Anglo-Catholics, but let's be honest, that is a group that should be on the endangered species list.

Short of becoming Orthodox or going back to Rome (my first two preferences in that order); this is all in all a pretty great day for Anglicanism. I say well done to them.

Go here to read the GAFCON Communique & Declaration of Jerusalem.

P. S. Does anyone know which four ecumenical councils they accept and which ones they reject? They mention four but do not name them.

Meanwhile in a different church in England...

In stark contrast to the announcement from the Roman Catholic Cardinal in Westminster Cathedral immediately preceding a Pontifical High Mass (see the previous post) there was another service being conducted in a different church in Great Britain...

There were bridesmaids and best men, an exchange of vows and rings, and a showering of rose-petal confetti. Only the bride was missing.

For this was Britain's first gay "wedding", held in one of the Church of England's oldest and most attractive churches.

St Bartholomew the Great at West Smithfield, in the City of London, dates from the 12th century but it can have seen few more historic events than this.

Greeted with a fanfare of trumpets, the Rev Peter Cowell and the Rev Dr David Lord celebrated their civil union with the kind of pomp and pageantry reserved for royal weddings. The couple walked up the aisle to Mendelssohn's march from A Midsummer Night's Dream dressed in morning suits, with their bridesmaids and best men following behind.

A robed choir sang in Latin as incense was burned on the high altar.

The service was rooted in the most traditional style, from the music to the liturgy, which was based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The Rev Martin Dudley addressed the congregation: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity."

Read the rest here.

I think this could be called a tale of two churches. One is in the process of reclaiming something it seems to have just realized that it misplaced. The other is abandoning its patrimony with a speed that is to be frank, unseemly. Is there any wonder that there are more Roman Catholics in Britain today than Anglicans?

Merry Christmas from Ms. Schori

A Christmas card sent from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

Hat tip to Alice Linsley

Enough of this 'New Age' church

From a Letter to the Editor of the Modesto Bee:

My ancestors were Church of England people from the colonial times. My maternal grandparents were married by a minister who later became head of the American Episcopal Church. I was baptized in an Episcopal cathedral in 1922. The writer of "One-sided reporting in Episcopal split" (Dec. 20, Letters) has not lived long enough to see what I have seen. She admires a ghost.

The parent Episcopal Church today has metamorphosed into a weird concoction of Catholic ceremonials and New Age thinking. People like the writer put the institution first, I suppose, because she loves the ceremonials, which are (or were) beautiful.

I do not put the institution first. Scripture is ignored when convenient. The motivating spirit of the organization is desire: whatever the extreme wing of the church wants is duly approved by the bishops and their purblind leader, all in the name of "love." Jesus is often seen as just another prophet, and Christianity only one road to salvation.

If that is the "mission" of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, everyone who belonged to it more than 30 years ago was sadly misled.

J.W. SMURR

Turlock

Hat tip to Kendall at T-19

San Joaquin Secedes (Official)

Breaking News: The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has voted to formally sever its ties with The Episcopal Church. Since this is the second reading of the amendments to its constitution, I believe the secession is effective immediately. Bravo and well done to its bishop and clergy for taking this heroic and historic stand.

The Pope's Revolution

Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.

Read the rest here.

Quote of the day...

...I do ask that Anglicans recognize when they have changed Anglican doctrine, and my argument runs thus

Major Premise: Changing the doctrine on the ordination of women is a departure from “biblically faithful, traditional Anglicanism.” Call it what you will, but the decision to ordain women was an innovation and a departure from the received teaching of Anglicanism on the Sacrament of Orders.

Minor Premise: Changing the doctrine on the marriage of homosexual persons is a departure from “biblically faithful, traditional Anglicanism.” Call it what you will, but the decision to marry homosexual persons is an innovation and a departure from the received teaching of Anglicanism on the Sacrament of Marriage.

Conclusion: Those Anglicans who accept the ordination of women have no standing to reject the marriage of homosexual persons.

Both decisions are radical innovations in Christian doctrine, totally rejected as unbiblical and untraditional by the vast majority of Christians of every time and place (including almost all Anglicans until this generation), and those who accept the first change cannot give a coherent argument from Scripture or Tradition for rejecting the second change. Either doctrine can be changed by majority vote of the General Convention, or it cannot. The doctrine on the ordination of women was changed by majority vote, and even the party of resistance in TEC (represented by Nashotah and Trinity) accepts the legitimacy of that change; on what basis, then, is a change on homosexual marriage by majority vote rejected by those who accepted the first change?

The only possible answer is, We approved of the first change, but we don’t approve of the second change. And that is simply the Will to Power, not an argument about the proper role of authority in the Church. To provide an adequate rejection of homosexual marriage (which I believe must be done by faithful Christians), it is also necessary to admit that the ordination of women was an illegitimate innovation in the life of the Church. And that’s not a Catholic argument; that’s just the operation of right reason and ruthless honesty.

-Fr Jay Scott Newman (Roman Catholic)

From a wide ranging discussion at T-19.

An outrageous comment

According to the UPI the below remarks were made by the Nigerian (Anglican) Bishop +Isaac Orama of Uyo.

Sept. 2 (UPI) -- Uyo, Sept. 2, 2007 (NAN) The Anglican Bishop of Uyo, Rt. Rev. Isaac Orama, has condemned the activities of homosexuals and lesbians, and described those engaged in them as "insane people''. "It is scaring that any one should be involved in a thing like that and I want to say that they will not escape the wrath of God,'' he said. Orama told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) today in Uyo, that the practice, which has worsened over the years, was "unbiblical and against God's purpose for creating man''. Homosexuals - 2 "Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God's purpose for man,'' the Bishop said. He noted that the Anglican Church in Nigeria had continued to lead the fight against the practice especially in the US where it led the opposition to same sex marriages. "The aim of such fight is to provide a safe place for those who want to remain faithful Anglicans and Biblical Christians,'' he explained.(NAN) NS/IFY/ETS

This prompted me to take the unusual step of posting the below comment over at Fr. Jake's site (yes, that Fr. Jake) where +Orama's comments were receiving much attention.

Bp +Orama's comments are repulsive and shock the conscience. I condemn them unreservedly. The only thing that is satanic here is whatever could impel a servant of God to make such remarks about any of God's children.

Whatever one's opinions regarding the current problems in many of the mainline Protestant sects and their alarming departure from Christian orthodoxy, this clearly is way over the top. I am not normally in the habit of advising other churches about matters of internal discipline, but Bp. +Orama needs to be called on the carpet for this . No one who calls themselves a Christian and wishes to be so recognized by any decent person should feel anything other than revulsion and yes, anger over these comments.

Orthodox vs orthodox

This is the equivalent of a e-bitch-slap. “So, call yerselves ‘orthodox’ do ya? Well, guess what? Ya’ll ain’t what’s referenced in the dictionary when it comes to ‘orthodox,’ and dang if ya’ll don’t look anything like a ‘real’ Orthodox Church.” In other words: Calling yourselves “orthodox” is a whole bunch of meaningless twaddle.

AO go on to point out the difference in Orthodoxy and orthodox Anglicans. They’ve done some reading, it appears, and have come to some interesting conclusions. You know, thoughtful chaps, what? It seems that Orthodoxy centers it’s life in the liturgy, while orthodox Anglicans center their lives in the Scriptures. (Or so dichotomizes the AO folks.) But let’s hear it from the AO peeps.

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to the Young Fogey.

Not invited

“I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion,”

-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on his decision to not invite V. Gene Robinson and Martyn Minns to the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

Read the whole story here

Hat tip to T-19

Predictably this is producing outrage among the usual suspects. In what can only be described as truly breathtaking chutzpah some are accusing the ABC of precipitating a schism! Read the comments below Jake's thoughts if you have the intestinal fortitude.

More News From ECUSA (Are the lunatics running the asylum?)

Gay and lesbian Episcopalians warn church not to scapegoat them
UPI Religion & Spirituality Forum


SAN FRANCISCO, April 8 (UPI) — The Episcopal Church's gay and lesbian lobby is vowing to fight any retreat from the denomination's recent embrace of homosexuality.

A report by a 14-member commission late last week urged dioceses to proceed with caution when choosing bishops whose "manner of life presents a challenge" to the wider church.

The commission was referring to the election of priests as bishops who are known to be homosexual. The commission was formed to propose recommendations to the Episcopal Church, which is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, about efforts of a majority of the Communion to expel the Episcopal Church for consecrating an openly gay man as bishop three years ago.

The Episcopal Church will consider the commission's recommendations this summer when it meets in Ohio.
Of particular concern to the denomination's leaders are May 6 elections in the Diocese of California for a new bishop; three of the leading candidates are openly homosexual.

The commission's report provoked the church's gay and lesbian lobby, and prompted one homosexual activist to link the fate of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church with that of women clergy.

"Of most interest to the Diocese of California is the report's call for 'nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion,'" said the Rev. John Kirkley, president of Oasis/California.

"Exercising caution when electing a bishop is always wise counsel; it should not mean ignoring the church's canons protecting all Episcopalians against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation," he added.

"Electing a woman as bishop would present a challenge to large parts of the Anglican Communion, but most Episcopalians would not vote against a female candidate just because she is a woman. The unity of the Anglican Communion cannot be based on scapegoating women or gay and lesbian people."