Sunday, February 27, 2005

Fr Michael (Wood) on the Lords and the break-up of Anglicanism
Fr Michael wrote all of the following: The point about the House of Lords in its hey day, when it was largely hereditary, was that a fair number of the members had a genuine "stake in the country". Later of course, the really active Lords - those who had large estates or other interests, rarely attended at the House. Many of those who did attend were the impecunious Lords. However, it did include a fair component of those who had retired from otherwise active life. Its final descent came with the introduction of the "life peers" and the stacking thereby, with failed politicians and union leaders. Now, that is virtually all it will contain and, for some time to come it will be an essentially left of centre chamber, useless to man or beast.

As far as the de facto expulsion of two large chunks of the ramshackle Anglican "Communion" from its sort-of de facto governing talking shop is concerned: How much more evidence is needed of its actual demise?

1. An unconnected ecclesial body for 460 odd years.
2. Its primary existence and structural adhesion provided by the secular state.
3. Having no universally recognised or enforceable doctrinal corpus.
4. For the past two centuries, having permitted the very large scale penetration of its clergy and laity at all levels by a non-Christian secret organisation which is in direct competition with Christianity.
5. For the past century, unable and unwilling to enforce even belief in the basic doctrines of Christianity such as the existence of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity etc., upon its clergy, and having significant percentages of them openly denying some or all of the above.
6. For the past forty years having abandoned its traditional worship standard in favour of deliberately humanistic forms of assembly.
7. For the past thirty years having virtually universally embraced and in places, enforced - the breaking, of Catholic Holy Order by purporting to ordain women to the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate. [My links, not Fr Michael’s.]
8. For the past year having some member jurisdictions perform church "blessings" or ceremonies of marriage between two persons of the same sex.
9. For the past year, having some member jurisdictions ordain or put forward for ordination persons openly living in and advocating homosexual unions.
10. For a century having persecuted through the secular and ecclesiastical courts, clergy who sought to return it to full Catholic faith and order.
11. For the past thirty years having persecuted those clergy and people who sought to retain some semblance of catholic faith and order.
12. For the past thirty years having suffered continual schisms of members forming jurisdictions intent upon fostering greater or lesser degrees of genuine Christianity.
13. There now exist at least ten quite separate credibly sizeable ecclesial bodies (including the "official" Communion) operating worldwide, under the name "Anglican".
14. A large number of people and clergy in the home country, are now planning an "independent" non-geographic Province - in effective competition with the geographical Provinces.
15. Catholic order insofar as it ever existed, having further broken down with major "official" dioceses setting up illegal operations within the diocesan territory of other parts of the "official" Communion.
16. The apparent inability of the "official" Communion to expel member bodies which break even its minimalist rules of faith and moral behaviour.
17. Widespread immorality among the clergy, amounting to criminal behaviour in some instances and virtual official ignorance of Traditional canon law in others.
18. The "official church" now having several massive schisms either incipient or in fact within itself.

This is a place worth "staying in and fighting" for? Good grief! It isn't even a "place" anymore.

Beginning over forty years ago, a large group of liberal humanists drifted into the ranks of the "Anglican Communion" and began a process of destroying its institutions from within. This was classical marxist tactics applied to their own agenda. Originally, they weren't actually all that enamoured of the radical feminist agenda for the "ordination" of women, but those among their number who resisted that idea were successfully removed or sidelined and the feminist-liberal-humanist remaking of the Communion rolled on.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment