If you want to honestly proclaim yourself a God believing and honoring man or woman, boy or girl, and if in particular you wish to manifest your proclamation of Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior, consider the following, on this Good Friday and Easter celebration.
Just because someone declares you to be his or her enemy, you do not have to nor should you declare the other person your enemy in return. Jesus did not.
Plenty of people have declared me (behind my back) their "enemy" because they believe in a totally messed up world view of reincarnation, evil aliens sneaking around, and "payback" and vengeance for real or imagined wrongs. I've never considered even a single one of those people my enemy in turn.
Sin is the enemy, not the people themselves. No matter what a person does to you or if he or she goes so far as declaring you an "enemy," there is no reason for you to accept the invitation to mutual enmity.
The longer someone is your enemy in a one sided enemy relationship, the further he, she or they as a group walk further and further away from God and their own salvation. If you remain just and righteous, believing only in God and fore swearing enmity and malice, you will in turn move closer to closer to God.
Do not proclaim yourself a believer in God and a follower of Jesus Christ and then, in turn, accept invitations (or worse, be tempted to issue) declarations of enmity or even withholding of blessings and prayers for the other side's betterment.
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Friday, April 2, 2010
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Vatican initiative for dissident Anglicans
Needless to say I am delighted at this plan and applaud Pope Benedict XVI and all who worked on this process.
For those of you who have been deprived of the history of the split between Roman Catholics and Anglicans (brought about by English King Henry VIII) read the Christian Science Monitor article which gives you a good idea with just a few sentences of context.
www.csmonitor.com
For those of you who have been deprived of the history of the split between Roman Catholics and Anglicans (brought about by English King Henry VIII) read the Christian Science Monitor article which gives you a good idea with just a few sentences of context.
www.csmonitor.com
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Creepy doings at Lambeth
Wow. It's like the American delegation has been able to create a church that's not about God, and just plain old humanly offensive too. I hope reverent Episcopalians wise up and swim the Tiber (with or without water wings, just hurry).
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/losses-at-lambeth/83118/
snip
If there's one thing on which the fractured pool of Anglican bishops can agree, it's that the Lambeth Conference is an enormous waste of time and money. Lambeth — named for the Archbishop of Canterbury's opulent London palace — is the once-a-decade gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church here in America is a small part.
Sadly, it's the New York City-area Episcopalian delegation to Lambeth that is to blame — once again — for ruining the conference. This time around it was the antics of the suffragan bishop from the Diocese of New York, Catherine Roskam. At a Lambeth workshop late last week, Ms. Roskam told the crowd that men beat women "because they can."
According to a report in the Times of London, Ms. Roskam shocked and dismayed her fellow bishops with the following tirade: "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 ... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife." She may be right that such places exist. The problem is that the bishop was making sweeping allegations about groups, not individuals.
***
Read the whole article. The whole Church of England/Episcopal nightmare could be titled "Legends of a church that forgot all about God and became just plain mean and falsely self righteous instead." Ugh. Bleah.
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/losses-at-lambeth/83118/
snip
If there's one thing on which the fractured pool of Anglican bishops can agree, it's that the Lambeth Conference is an enormous waste of time and money. Lambeth — named for the Archbishop of Canterbury's opulent London palace — is the once-a-decade gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church here in America is a small part.
Sadly, it's the New York City-area Episcopalian delegation to Lambeth that is to blame — once again — for ruining the conference. This time around it was the antics of the suffragan bishop from the Diocese of New York, Catherine Roskam. At a Lambeth workshop late last week, Ms. Roskam told the crowd that men beat women "because they can."
According to a report in the Times of London, Ms. Roskam shocked and dismayed her fellow bishops with the following tirade: "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 ... many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife." She may be right that such places exist. The problem is that the bishop was making sweeping allegations about groups, not individuals.
***
Read the whole article. The whole Church of England/Episcopal nightmare could be titled "Legends of a church that forgot all about God and became just plain mean and falsely self righteous instead." Ugh. Bleah.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Dr Rowan Williams means well, but....
... sometimes he really just is not helpful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2303162/Christian-doctrine-offensive-to-Muslims%2C-says-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html
***
Sigh. Two brief points.
1) Christian doctrine is not "offensive" to Muslims. Muslims feel strongly that those problematic areas are contradicted in the Qur'an. So it's not like they find some of Christianity "icky." There is nothing offensive in the sense of repugnant to a Muslim, who actually has high regard for Jesus and believes in his virginal birth through the Holy Spirit, his miraculous ability obtained from God, and his ascension. Muslims interpret the parts of the Qur'an that continually affirm that there is only one God plus wording that to them indicates that Jesus was not actually crucified makes Muslims to be vehement that the Qur'an contracts some of Christian doctrine. That's not "offensive," that is belief in the wording of the Qur'an as they interpret it.
2) Building bridges by starting with the major differences and not building the foundation of commonality, which is huge, and which is what the Pope has suggested doing, would be failure. Um, you have to first establish all the vast body of theology that Muslims and Christians are in total agreement regarding. This will also brush away by using solid scholarship perceived differences that in actuality are verbiage and conceptual misunderstandings. Goodness. This is hardly a helpful contribution, although he means well and is entitled to his opinion in his own church, obviously. But the Pope has the right approach, which the Muslims have agreed to, about the three areas where to first define commonality.
Just to add the obvious example. Before arguing about the Trinity and the nature of Jesus Christ, huge progress will be made once everyone is in agreement that God and Allah mean the same one Divine Lord. "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God." Allah does not designate a different God than God. Muslims were introduced to God the same way Jews and Christians were, through the God of Adam, Abraham and Moses. So "God" and "Allah" both refer to the God who made himself known to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon and David. The Bible and the Qur'an are in total agreement on that. See? Wasn't that easy?
It is through exercises and scholarship like that example that will build the foundational knowledge and understanding and agreement upon which to explore the genuine and perceived differences on firm theological, language and cultural contexts.
I hope this is helpful. I'd really like to see this initiative stay on track and succeed. (Understatement of the century...!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2303162/Christian-doctrine-offensive-to-Muslims%2C-says-Archbishop-of-Canterbury.html
***
Sigh. Two brief points.
1) Christian doctrine is not "offensive" to Muslims. Muslims feel strongly that those problematic areas are contradicted in the Qur'an. So it's not like they find some of Christianity "icky." There is nothing offensive in the sense of repugnant to a Muslim, who actually has high regard for Jesus and believes in his virginal birth through the Holy Spirit, his miraculous ability obtained from God, and his ascension. Muslims interpret the parts of the Qur'an that continually affirm that there is only one God plus wording that to them indicates that Jesus was not actually crucified makes Muslims to be vehement that the Qur'an contracts some of Christian doctrine. That's not "offensive," that is belief in the wording of the Qur'an as they interpret it.
2) Building bridges by starting with the major differences and not building the foundation of commonality, which is huge, and which is what the Pope has suggested doing, would be failure. Um, you have to first establish all the vast body of theology that Muslims and Christians are in total agreement regarding. This will also brush away by using solid scholarship perceived differences that in actuality are verbiage and conceptual misunderstandings. Goodness. This is hardly a helpful contribution, although he means well and is entitled to his opinion in his own church, obviously. But the Pope has the right approach, which the Muslims have agreed to, about the three areas where to first define commonality.
Just to add the obvious example. Before arguing about the Trinity and the nature of Jesus Christ, huge progress will be made once everyone is in agreement that God and Allah mean the same one Divine Lord. "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God." Allah does not designate a different God than God. Muslims were introduced to God the same way Jews and Christians were, through the God of Adam, Abraham and Moses. So "God" and "Allah" both refer to the God who made himself known to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon and David. The Bible and the Qur'an are in total agreement on that. See? Wasn't that easy?
It is through exercises and scholarship like that example that will build the foundational knowledge and understanding and agreement upon which to explore the genuine and perceived differences on firm theological, language and cultural contexts.
I hope this is helpful. I'd really like to see this initiative stay on track and succeed. (Understatement of the century...!)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Converting bishops would show huge humility
Any of the Church of England priests who are married can convert to Catholicism and take orders. However, married bishops cannot. The fact that certain Church of England bishops would lead their flocks to communion with the Catholic Church, knowing that they cannot remain bishops, is a HUGE example of pious humility.
Think of how these bishops would "follow Christ" to the Catholic church, bringing their flocks, and then having to lay down their apostolate as bishops, and become priests again, do so with gladness and in service of God. That would be a remarkable statement and a role model for the century, really. Why do I say that? Because it is exactly an antidote to the heretical grasping of the priesthood by those who are not able to be priests (the so called "women" priests) who do so just for the "power" and because it's "their right." What an impressive counter demonstration of truly living one's vocation. It is exactly what I was blogging about a few days ago when I pointed out that many of the holiest saints fled the responsibility of being bishop (or even pope) when it was repeatedly offered to them. To keep one's eyes on Christ, and on the flock, regardless of where one is in the so-called "power hierarchy" would be a remarkable demonstration and role modeling for all Christians, in truth.
Prayers for those and their flock who are exploring this journey "back home" "to Rome."
Think of how these bishops would "follow Christ" to the Catholic church, bringing their flocks, and then having to lay down their apostolate as bishops, and become priests again, do so with gladness and in service of God. That would be a remarkable statement and a role model for the century, really. Why do I say that? Because it is exactly an antidote to the heretical grasping of the priesthood by those who are not able to be priests (the so called "women" priests) who do so just for the "power" and because it's "their right." What an impressive counter demonstration of truly living one's vocation. It is exactly what I was blogging about a few days ago when I pointed out that many of the holiest saints fled the responsibility of being bishop (or even pope) when it was repeatedly offered to them. To keep one's eyes on Christ, and on the flock, regardless of where one is in the so-called "power hierarchy" would be a remarkable demonstration and role modeling for all Christians, in truth.
Prayers for those and their flock who are exploring this journey "back home" "to Rome."
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wow, am I sick of the subject...
... and have been for a long time.
Every time some "feminist" plasters her face all over the press and the pulpit about her "rights" it's yet another time it's not about her humble and pious love of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It's like in their list of things to care about, humility and love of God is at the bottom of the list, instead of the top.
I know it is a hard statement to make, to basically attack someone's faith, but I'd have to be an idiot and blind to not see what the motivations of these people are. I do not doubt their belief in God, but they obviously think he is something to be manipulated and "interpreted." And that is as bad, honestly, as no belief at all, because if you are a "church leader" and hold that viewpoint, you lead others astray from the core understanding that God is if anything not manipulable or changeable. That is the whole point about God: he is unchanging forever and ever.
Every time some "feminist" plasters her face all over the press and the pulpit about her "rights" it's yet another time it's not about her humble and pious love of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It's like in their list of things to care about, humility and love of God is at the bottom of the list, instead of the top.
I know it is a hard statement to make, to basically attack someone's faith, but I'd have to be an idiot and blind to not see what the motivations of these people are. I do not doubt their belief in God, but they obviously think he is something to be manipulated and "interpreted." And that is as bad, honestly, as no belief at all, because if you are a "church leader" and hold that viewpoint, you lead others astray from the core understanding that God is if anything not manipulable or changeable. That is the whole point about God: he is unchanging forever and ever.
Church of England: chickens on roost approach
Not surprisingly they are determined to have "women bishops."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2264484/Church-of-England-set-to-split-over--women-bishops.html
***
Here's the problem. It's not a faith to these people, and it's not about God or Jesus Christ, it's about the church as a corporate entity with "power" to be obtained as the "ladder" is climbed. Don't believe me? Read this snip:
Dr Rowan Williams took to the floor of the debating chamber and said he had "not very comfortably" come to the conclusion that provisions must be made for traditionalists.
He said: "I am deeply unhappy with schemes or solutions which involve the structural humiliation of women, who are elected to the episcopate and end up haggling about the limits to their authority."
"Humiliation" of women? "Limits to their authority?" There's the difference between the true Catholic Church and those who schismed in a nutshell. Those who schismed from the Catholic Church claim that Catholics are all about "heirarchy" and "power," but that is a lie and is actually projecting onto Catholics their own schismatic unconscious value system. Non denominationals want to "form" their "own" churches, and intepret the Bible their "own" way. Church of England "feminists" want "a piece of the pie," just like they were greedy executives crawling up the pay scale. It's disgusting.
If you spend any time reading about the saints during the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church, you will find many examples of extremely holy men who RAN from being given the Bishop rank. I can flip through my encyclopedia of saints and come up with examples very quickly. There is a long and solid, consistent history of saintly men, many of whom were miracle workers or mystics, who ran from having the "next rung on the ladder" thrust upon them, not because they could not "handle the job" but because to them, the life is all about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Few men have "angled" for "the top job," which is why when a Pope is named he goes to "the Crying Room" to robe.
The lack of Christ orientation and lack of humility in the Church of England ASTOUNDS me. That they openly refer to it as the glass ceiling power grabbing power ladder climbing game ought to be the source of deep shame for all of them, yet obviously, it is not. What a disgrace. I hope that many "traditionalists" (aka "the faithful") will come to Rome.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2264484/Church-of-England-set-to-split-over--women-bishops.html
***
Here's the problem. It's not a faith to these people, and it's not about God or Jesus Christ, it's about the church as a corporate entity with "power" to be obtained as the "ladder" is climbed. Don't believe me? Read this snip:
Dr Rowan Williams took to the floor of the debating chamber and said he had "not very comfortably" come to the conclusion that provisions must be made for traditionalists.
He said: "I am deeply unhappy with schemes or solutions which involve the structural humiliation of women, who are elected to the episcopate and end up haggling about the limits to their authority."
"Humiliation" of women? "Limits to their authority?" There's the difference between the true Catholic Church and those who schismed in a nutshell. Those who schismed from the Catholic Church claim that Catholics are all about "heirarchy" and "power," but that is a lie and is actually projecting onto Catholics their own schismatic unconscious value system. Non denominationals want to "form" their "own" churches, and intepret the Bible their "own" way. Church of England "feminists" want "a piece of the pie," just like they were greedy executives crawling up the pay scale. It's disgusting.
If you spend any time reading about the saints during the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church, you will find many examples of extremely holy men who RAN from being given the Bishop rank. I can flip through my encyclopedia of saints and come up with examples very quickly. There is a long and solid, consistent history of saintly men, many of whom were miracle workers or mystics, who ran from having the "next rung on the ladder" thrust upon them, not because they could not "handle the job" but because to them, the life is all about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Few men have "angled" for "the top job," which is why when a Pope is named he goes to "the Crying Room" to robe.
The lack of Christ orientation and lack of humility in the Church of England ASTOUNDS me. That they openly refer to it as the glass ceiling power grabbing power ladder climbing game ought to be the source of deep shame for all of them, yet obviously, it is not. What a disgrace. I hope that many "traditionalists" (aka "the faithful") will come to Rome.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Does Jesus feel Anglican pain? Not so much!
Sorry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7491829.stm
snip
Jesus 'would feel Anglican pain'
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said Jesus would feel the pain on both sides of the divide in the Church of England over women bishops and gay priests.
Rowan Williams made his comments during a sermon at a communion service at York Minster ahead of a crucial vote by the Church's ruling body.
***
Huh?
Read the Gospel. Does Jesus sound like the kind of guy who would feel the pain of those who disobey God's commandments and who abandoned the Church that he left under the charge of "Peter," the Vicar of Jesus Christ in Rome?
After hundreds of years of defiant and ill informed falling away from the one true Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church, the only pain Jesus is feeling is migraines and righteous clenching of teeth.
Come back to the Catholic Church!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7491829.stm
snip
Jesus 'would feel Anglican pain'
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said Jesus would feel the pain on both sides of the divide in the Church of England over women bishops and gay priests.
Rowan Williams made his comments during a sermon at a communion service at York Minster ahead of a crucial vote by the Church's ruling body.
***
Huh?
Read the Gospel. Does Jesus sound like the kind of guy who would feel the pain of those who disobey God's commandments and who abandoned the Church that he left under the charge of "Peter," the Vicar of Jesus Christ in Rome?
After hundreds of years of defiant and ill informed falling away from the one true Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church, the only pain Jesus is feeling is migraines and righteous clenching of teeth.
Come back to the Catholic Church!!!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why the Church of England is weak
Here is an article about the Queen and the Prince of Wales' concern regarding the comments by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. You can link to what he actually said but basically he was ruminating about some "inevitable" incorporation of sharia law in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/13/nsharia113.xml
***
OK, here's the problem. The inherent false basis of the COE is coming home to roost as politics and political correctness have overwhelming importance over the actual Christian faith. Remember that the COE was a political action conducted by the King Henry VIII (who by the way is not reincarnated.. yes I know you all are tired of hearing me rant on that subject, but not nearly as tired as I am at having to repeat it.. I do know at least one idiot who believed he was reincarnated Henry VIII) so that he could have a divorce, which the Catholic Church would not grant. There was nothing wrong with his wife, simply that she did not bear a child and he grew impatient. So there was no reason for annulment and when the Catholic Church would not grant it King Henry forced his entire country away from the Catholic Church and made the remnants of the faith subordinate to the monarchy, and to this day it remains subordinate to the state. So despite richness of liturgy that kept individual faith close in appearance and some substance to the Catholic Church, the entire focus of the COE became "anti" rather than "pro." Rather than being "pro" their faith, as are Catholics and Muslims, COE became "anti-Catholics" "anti-Popery" and "anti-religiosity."
Instead of reconnecting with their Christian roots the COE as a whole has become more and more a spin machine for social agenda. It is not surprising that their Sunday service attendance figures have plummeted, they have schism, AND they have an Archbishop more worried about sharia law so that the UK can be "fair" than he is worried about Jesus Christ.
You can understand it simply like this. Rather than being in harmony with Muslims his comments show an opposite point of view. To Muslims Islam comes first, not the government. Islam is not the national religion in countries like Saudi Arabia because "the government says so." The countries that have a predominant population of Muslims have chosen to designate their religion as the state religion. This is obvious in the case where Saudi Arabia has the responsibility for the treasures of Islam, such as hosting the haj. Much of the government's reason for existence is to be gracious hosts to the guests of God. It is the same with The Vatican. It's not like The Vatican "decided" to be Catholic; it exists because that "is" the place where they host the servants of God that surround the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. England had no such thoughts. The COE did not come into being because England was the seat of some great congregation of the rulers of the faith, or to enhance piety. It was simply a sordid divorce decision and as a result abbeys and churches were looted and destroyed and Catholic priests and citizens were tortured and executed. It actually became illegal to be a Catholic.
So you have to understand the sins of the ancestors to understand the weaknesses of the present. The COE has been a political and social instrument rather than a religious instrument ever since its inception. This makes it too easily distracted with every whim of the current social scene, rather than focus on reconnecting disaffected parishioners and the fallen away with God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All faiths struggle with the secularization of this generation and with scandal. But COE seems obsessed with paying attention to anything except proclaiming Jesus Christ and living by the New Covenant. I have sympathy for the Monarchy as I do believe their piety and goodwill and they inherited their leadership of this secular structure and orientation. But the last thing they need is clergy who do nothing but obsess about "gender," "sexual preference," "political correctness," and whatever way the social winds blow.
Trust me, rather than gain the admiration of the Islamic scholars, talk like this shows what a "weak sister" the COE is in the dialogue between faiths. They will say and do anything except hold firm to their own faith, and no one respects that. Wake up! I see the COE crumbling into dust.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/13/nsharia113.xml
***
OK, here's the problem. The inherent false basis of the COE is coming home to roost as politics and political correctness have overwhelming importance over the actual Christian faith. Remember that the COE was a political action conducted by the King Henry VIII (who by the way is not reincarnated.. yes I know you all are tired of hearing me rant on that subject, but not nearly as tired as I am at having to repeat it.. I do know at least one idiot who believed he was reincarnated Henry VIII) so that he could have a divorce, which the Catholic Church would not grant. There was nothing wrong with his wife, simply that she did not bear a child and he grew impatient. So there was no reason for annulment and when the Catholic Church would not grant it King Henry forced his entire country away from the Catholic Church and made the remnants of the faith subordinate to the monarchy, and to this day it remains subordinate to the state. So despite richness of liturgy that kept individual faith close in appearance and some substance to the Catholic Church, the entire focus of the COE became "anti" rather than "pro." Rather than being "pro" their faith, as are Catholics and Muslims, COE became "anti-Catholics" "anti-Popery" and "anti-religiosity."
Instead of reconnecting with their Christian roots the COE as a whole has become more and more a spin machine for social agenda. It is not surprising that their Sunday service attendance figures have plummeted, they have schism, AND they have an Archbishop more worried about sharia law so that the UK can be "fair" than he is worried about Jesus Christ.
You can understand it simply like this. Rather than being in harmony with Muslims his comments show an opposite point of view. To Muslims Islam comes first, not the government. Islam is not the national religion in countries like Saudi Arabia because "the government says so." The countries that have a predominant population of Muslims have chosen to designate their religion as the state religion. This is obvious in the case where Saudi Arabia has the responsibility for the treasures of Islam, such as hosting the haj. Much of the government's reason for existence is to be gracious hosts to the guests of God. It is the same with The Vatican. It's not like The Vatican "decided" to be Catholic; it exists because that "is" the place where they host the servants of God that surround the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. England had no such thoughts. The COE did not come into being because England was the seat of some great congregation of the rulers of the faith, or to enhance piety. It was simply a sordid divorce decision and as a result abbeys and churches were looted and destroyed and Catholic priests and citizens were tortured and executed. It actually became illegal to be a Catholic.
So you have to understand the sins of the ancestors to understand the weaknesses of the present. The COE has been a political and social instrument rather than a religious instrument ever since its inception. This makes it too easily distracted with every whim of the current social scene, rather than focus on reconnecting disaffected parishioners and the fallen away with God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All faiths struggle with the secularization of this generation and with scandal. But COE seems obsessed with paying attention to anything except proclaiming Jesus Christ and living by the New Covenant. I have sympathy for the Monarchy as I do believe their piety and goodwill and they inherited their leadership of this secular structure and orientation. But the last thing they need is clergy who do nothing but obsess about "gender," "sexual preference," "political correctness," and whatever way the social winds blow.
Trust me, rather than gain the admiration of the Islamic scholars, talk like this shows what a "weak sister" the COE is in the dialogue between faiths. They will say and do anything except hold firm to their own faith, and no one respects that. Wake up! I see the COE crumbling into dust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
