Oh, pics pleeease....
I certainly have seen where her rainbow styles have caused ridiculous fashion:
(incidentally, that file's name is "technicolor_yawn.jpg")
Posted on 06/26/2008 10:26:37 AM PDT by NYer
This comment resonates with me. I remember my visits to Anglican churches in England. I remember the emptiness, the short ceremony and talk of can't-remember-what by the Anglican divine. I also remember a middle-aged fellow in a tweed suit devoutly kneeling and praying with his common book. I recall Anglicans, whose faith seems to be dissolved in a cloud of contradictory sentiments, insisting that their children grow up churched, lest they turn out like the parents themselves--unchurched. I think God will reward the persistence of some of these Anglicans.
Among the British theologians, Anglican or denomenational, of the last couple hundred years you will find many of surpassing excellence, such as Bishop Butler. But with the good you find the tares. It is as if one hand of Anglicanism was busy tearing down and undermining what the other hand was trying to build up. The result was a collapse into the know-nothing-ism of the 19th century. Theology is bunk. Big words are bunk. Reasoning about God is bunk. History is bunk. Miracles are bunk. Everything is bunk. And now, the Anglican situation of today.
I suppose many causes led up to this situation. One material cause I venture to put forth is that Anglicanism cut itself off from prior history of Christian thought. This is quite evident from their books. Rather than applying St. Paul's "take what is good, leave the rest", I guess they thought it was all bunk and not worth considering. Thus they built their theology on a foundation of sand.
“The problem is that even if the Anglican Communion excises the cancer that is rotting the communion from the head, the remainder of the body will still be split into a more Orthodox and a more Reformed faction.”
As we Greeks say, a fish rots from the head down. Look at Anglicanism headed by the likes of the Arch Druid of Canterbury, the Great White Heretic of Canada and that silly woman heresiarch with the rainbow oven mitt for a mitre here in the States. Institutional white, Western, Northern Anglicanism is no longer anything recognizable as Christian. What assuredly IS recognizable are many of the traditional and orthodox Anglican communities here and around the Western world. It will be interesting to see if those groups, and for the matter the Global South, end up in communion with Rome or Holy Orthodoxy.
If the SSPX are schismatics, does that mean that they are heretics? What heresy have they committed? They do explicitly deny sedevacantism, and I’m not sure that’s a heresy.
Oh, pics pleeease....
I certainly have seen where her rainbow styles have caused ridiculous fashion:
(incidentally, that file's name is "technicolor_yawn.jpg")
When one of their leaders - namely Williamson - asserts that the Holy See teaches heresy, then he himself is teaching the heresy that the Church is defectible.
Or is this the very picture you were referring to?
As I suggested above, there is a third alternative. One of the main groups within the Anglican communion insisting on Scriptural moral teaching is the Anglican diocese of Sydney, Australia. That diocese is decidedly neither Catholic nor Orthodox in tone, but Reformed in its theology.
Sheesh, what's in the water of your high school?
>> When one of their leaders - namely Williamson - asserts that the Holy See teaches heresy, then he himself is teaching the heresy that the Church is defectible. <<
I’m not sure about Williamson, but I believe the notion is that Vatican 2, and many actions by the Pope afterward, may contain elements of heresy, but don’t violate the notion of infallibility because there was no invocation of infallibility: The objectionable portions of Vatican II were explicitly non-dogmatic in nature, and Paul VI’s abolishment of the Latin Mass (can we please call a spade a spade? The Latin Mass was abolished by Paul VI!) invited heresy, but was an act of governance, not of establishing doctrine.
“That diocese is decidedly neither Catholic nor Orthodox in tone, but Reformed in its theology.”
Oh, I agree to great extent and yet its surprising how very, very Orthodox some of the theology of the “evangelical” wing of the Anglicans can be. Read some of the tracts of Bishop Ryle from the 19th century. On the other hand, I have also heard that some of these “orthodox” Anglican groups are truly and profoundly Reformed Protestant.
Reminds me of a little girl playing “dress up”. It’s all make believe.
And what’s with the use of such a prepostrously large miter anyway? It’s three times the size of the POPE’S! (Right, she’s playing gay pope.)
Dead on and very astute in your observations. This bears repeating.
I think it can be shown that SSPX rejects certain dogmas of Vatican I. They may not admit so formally, but their words and actions reveal it.
>> I think it can be shown that SSPX rejects certain dogmas of Vatican I. <<
Really? Vatican I? That is a fascinating charge. What dogmas do you see as being challenged by SSPX?
Pastor Aeternus Ch.3, On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.