Which way to turn? (Part II)
OrthoNews
Which way to turn? (Part II)
by The Rev. Canon Charles H. Nalls, SSM
November 4, 2009
"Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and
southward and eastward and westward..."
-Genesis 13:14
Several weeks ago, the Roman Catholic Church announced a forthcoming
Apostolic Constitution aimed at "reconciling" Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics in
particular, to the "big Church"; or, to use the language of the ever
fissiparous American Continuing Anglicans, the "Holy Catholic
Church-Original Jurisdiction." The initial announcement has prompted a
flurry of breathless letters speculating on the content of the Constitution
which purports to proffer Personal Ordinariates to Anglican folk disaffected
with the state of the imploding Anglican Communion and those "traditional"
Anglo-Catholics who yearn for unification with the See of Peter.
Some of the speculation concerning the content of the document whose release
has been "delayed" has ranged from merely cautious optimism, to the outright
duplicitous. For example, at least one traditional Anglican bishop asserts
that the "deal" with Rome is a only a communion arrangement in which
Anglo-Catholics will share communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but
will otherwise be autonomous. I think it fair to say that this position is
disingenuous at best. Anglicans "crossing over" will be a part of the Latin
Church and will have to assent to the dogma, doctrine and discipline of that
body unless they are going with fingers crossed. In any event, it is
anticipated that the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be
completed by the end of the first week of November, so the wait will not be
long.
However, while we attend upon the final placement of road signs and line
painting on the trans-Tiber highway, I have continued my own reflections on
the nature of Anglo-Catholicism and where things may be headed amidst the
decidedly mixed bag of reactions from its adherents. I began these
reflections with "Christian and Catholic" from The Works of the Rt. Rev.
Charles C. Grafton, the great Anglo-Catholic bishop of Eau Claire,
Wisconsin, and have continued with this article based on his essay
"Anglicanism and Reunion". [1] I again note that I have freely borrowed from
the great bishop's text (translate: Imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery.)
Grafton began his consideration of the "reunion" issue by pointing out that
the Anglican Church, at least that which was traditional, had her own
glories, the first being continuity. She is not a sect of yesterday, or a
man-made organization. The English Church did not begin, as is falsely
asserted, with King Henry the Eighth. The bishop notes that, "He [Henry] had
about the same relation to her as Pontius Pilate had to Christianity."
An ancient church
Anglicanism reaches back in her history to Apostolic times, and the
authority and spiritual powers the Lord gave His Apostles have been
transmitted to her. The golden network of the Apostolic succession binds its
bishops and clergy to Christ, although we have to admit that some who
profess and call themselves Anglicans have a succession that is tenuous at
best. In the course of the Reformation, no "new" Church was founded in Great
Britain.
Simply put, the Catholic Church in England rejected the mediaeval expansion
of the papacy as the great Eastern patriarchs and the Orthodox Churches of
the East had done before. The ancient faith, as declared in the creeds and
the undisputed Ecumenical councils, was retained. The appeal the Church made
in the conduct of her reforms was to Holy Scripture and antiquity. While the
general principle was correct in the undertaking, no doubt some mistakes
were made, and the Church, while gaining much, suffered some loss. But no
new church was created, no change made in the orders of the ministry. The
priesthood was preserved; the validity of the sacraments was secured; the
torch of living truth was handed on. But, where is the evidence of this
continuity?
Bp. Grafton notes that one proof lies in the fact that, of the fifty-six
hundred clergy who celebrated Mass in Queen Mary's reign, only about some
three hundred beneficed clergy are known to have refused to accept the Book
of Common Prayer and conform in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, Chief
Justice Coke, in a charge delivered by him at Norwich, stated that the pope
offered to allow the use of the Book of Common Prayer if the queen would
only submit to his supremacy. In point of fact, the Roman Catholic Church
currently allows an Anglican Use based upon the Book of Common Prayer,
albeit the flawed 1979 American version. As a sidebar, we can only pray that
a future "Anglican" liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church will be closer to
the prayer book tradition and not cling to the tainted legacy of the 1979
iteration with its post-Vatican II novelties.
Nevertheless, "There is no point," said the non-Conformist Professor Beard
in his Hibbert lectures, "at which it can be said, 'Here the old Church
ends; here the new begins.'" The historian Freeman, the Lord Chancellor
Selborne, the great statesman Gladstone, emphatically said so likewise.
Judge Sir Robert Phillimore declared,
It is not only a religious, but a legal error to suppose that a new church
was introduced into the realm at the time of the Reformation. It is not less
the language of our law than of our divinity that the old church was
restored, not that a new one was substituted.
Thus the church founded and organized by Christ and His Apostles has come
down to us through the ages, bearing the majestic treasures of the Apostolic
order, the life-giving sacraments, and the Catholic faith.
Diversity in Unity
We should admit that, even among Anglo-Catholics, that there are differences
of doctrinal expression, ceremonial, and practices. To be honest,
traditional Anglicans form a mixed bag of high and low church in liturgy and
theological understanding (two versus seven Sacraments, the value of private
auricular confession, and even the order of the Holy Communion service to
name a few). These are often made a target by Roman critics. But the
existence of different schools of theology is a sign of interest in
religion.
The Western Church has its Thomists, neo-Thomists, transcendental Thomists,
Proportionalists, Scotists, and Ultramontanes. So long as the creeds and
dogmas proclaimed and certified by the whole Church are held, differences of
opinion on subordinate points are allowable. We have some of the bitterness
and party spirit as has been found existing between contending schools in
Rome. There are extreme dogmatists and men of exaggerated utterances on both
Catholic and Protestant wings. But the differences between the great body of
traditional churchmen are not as great as they seem to superficial
observers, or as interested advocates would make them out to be.
Bp. Grafton pointed out that, "It is a help in understanding these
differences to remember the theological distinction between dogmatic and
systematic theology." By dogmatics we mean the great underlying and
essential facts of the Christian faith, and the creeds and the accredited
dogmas put forth by conciliar authority which express and guard them; by the
term "systematic theology" we are calling to mind the philosophical
expressions, theories, and explanations which unite them scientifically
together.
Now leaving out the extremists and the woefully uneducated who populate
parts of traditional Anglican or "continuing" clergy and laity, there is
concerning the dogmatic faith and creeds comparatively little difference
among those who at least self-identify as "traditionalists." The Anglican
Church puts the creeds and liturgy and ordinal and catechism and prayer-book
into the hands of her clergy, and bids them interpret Holy Scripture
according to the ancient fathers. "Where this is honestly done," says
Grafton, "men will find themselves standing not so very far apart."
I would proffer to extreme Anglo-Catholics, moreover, that the high and low
schools within the respective traditionalist bodies who properly bear the
label "catholic" are not in principle antagonistic, but are supplementary to
each other.
Low churchmen tend to emphasize the subjective side of religion. They dwell
on the sinfulness of man's nature, and his redemption by the atoning
efficacy of Christ's cross, and the necessity of conversion and a living
faith. High churchmen tend to focus on the objective aspect of religion.
Christianity came into the world as an institution, and an Apostolic
ministry is essential to connect us with Christ's authority. The sacraments
are the ordained channels and instruments of conveying grace. The two
aspects do not exclude one another. The truth lies in their combination.
Cautionary note
Here is a cautionary note both to the Roman Catholic Church as it sorts out
traditional Anglicans and traditional Anglicans, alike: every school, high,
low, or broad, has its own danger. The subjective or low church system,
unbalanced by the objective side of religion, leads to a denial of the
visible Church, its priesthood, and the sacraments as instruments and
effective signs of grace; the broad, or rationalizing, to a denial of all
that is supernatural in God's Word, and of authority, and the Church's
inherited dogmatic faith. In fact, the nineteenth-century split of the
Reformed Episcopal Church from the main body, and the evangelical side of
the current groups holding themselves out as "orthodox" have the precise
difficulties that Grafton identified. On the other hand, the extreme
Catholic or pro-Roman side, by its devotion to ceremony, yearning for
authority and centralization in government, uncritical acceptance of Roman
Catholic dogma and impatience with the condition of their condition (e.g.
the relegation of most to small struggling continuing parishes), turns in
faint-heartedness to the papacy. Essentially, this is a situation in which
primarily clergy believe that a Rome-ward turn will result in their
enjoyment of status and the handover of large facilities in which
"ceremonial" can be "properly" undertaken once again as it was in the glory
days of Anglo-Catholicism.
But Grafton believed that these errors can lead to their own cure. The
divine life of the Church is no more forcibly shown than in her inherent
power of self-purification. Christ is in her, and she shares in His
indestructible and resurrection life. The faith is preserved in her, and
extremes lead to their own elimination. So over time, the extreme low
churchmen, who deny priesthood and sacramental grace, seceded from the
Church and founded new sects, whether the Reformed Episcopalians of old, or
the AMiA and CANA of modern times.
They tried in America to get the Church to alter the prayer-book, which they
admitted was not in accord with their theology. It taught, they said, the
Apostolic succession, priesthood, baptismal regeneration, and the real
presence. The Church refused to change the prayer-book, and they withdrew.
It was the honest course to pursue and the logical outcome of their
theology. I should note here that there may be some current reversal of this
trend among the members of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) who have been
involved in the experiment for more than 100 years. On the other hand, the
more modern groups of claimed "Anglicans" frequently are indistinguishable
from non-denominational Protestant churches, and have clung in one way or
another the novelty of women's "ordination" that was the fruit of mainstream
Protestant Episcopalianism.
Likewise Catholics, who have become pro-Romans, believing in the divine
power of the papacy, and our duty to submit to its dominion, have naturally
gravitated to Rome. They have supported a reunion because they have
necessarily denied that Anglo-Catholics are somehow not "fully" Catholic and
look for the "fullness of faith" in Rome.
The rationalizing broad churchmen who deny the fundamental facts of the
creed, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ's body have
ended where Grafton's prophetic words have said they would. They lead a
double life, saying one thing at the altar and denying it in the pulpit (or
perhaps espousing apostasy in both places). Without lapsing to a general
condemnation as is common among us traditional Anglo-Catholic folk, I note
only that it is dishonorable to eat the bread of the Church whose creed they
do not teach, but have abandoned instead. It is far better for all those who
do not believe in the creed and sacramental system of the Church to be
outside of it. They then are at least delivered from the sin of saying what
they do not believe, or not discerning the Lord's body in the Eucharist, and
so eating and drinking to their own condemnation.
In Western Christendom a tremendous struggle is going on. It takes two
forms, one in the Roman, another in what remains of the Anglican communion.
They are alike in this, that Rome is having her struggle with the both
revisionists and theological liberals bent on ignoring doctrine and remaking
the Church in a political image, as well as the state in many places. For
its part, the Anglican Communion has splintered under the weight of
secularism and outright apostasy in the Western nations. Both churches are
assailed by general unbelief in Christianity.
For all that is Catholic our sympathies must be with the Roman Catholics in
their struggles, and we can but sorrow that she has been beset by priestly
scandals and internal dissidents. There is, however, a difference between
the struggle of traditional Anglicans to restore the Catholic faith and
worship, and that between the papacy and the dissidents within. The two
contests differ radically. Anglicans, with a lack of centralized authority
and uniform canons, are much farther along down the road of splintering and
realignment. We have been through two distinct ruptures, one theological and
one sexual and moral. Anglicans are struggling to resume their spiritual
rights; Rome is attempting to be all things to all Christians and upholding
laudable moral and theological positions, while being hoist on the twin
petards of scandal and internal rebellion.
Substantial differences
What is left of the "mainstream" American and the English Anglican Church
(unlike other portions of the former Anglican communion and the traditional
Anglican remnant) are failing due to their respective present connections
with the culture and the State. On the other hand, while traditional
Anglicans, albeit in yet small numbers, are succeeding in recovering the
faith as once delivered, and by all everywhere received, the Roman Catholics
are by late additions and the turning of what were once acknowledged to be
but opinions into dogmas of the faith are, in many places in the Western
church, failing in holding fast to it. While this latter statement may
provoke cries from my Roman Catholic colleagues, I point to the simple
failure of the Church to deal with massive dissent from teaching on sexual
matters as but one marker of greater concern with political power than with
spiritual. Is there a plausible reason why lawmakers who support the
holocaust of abortion are not disciplined by the Church of which they claim
to be a part?
Now on to the hot button items, the dogmas that Bp. Grafton challenged when
they were yet new, but which pose barriers to reunion even today. In sum, it
is a fair assertion that the Anglican Church (again, I am speaking of
orthodox Anglicans) has not added to the faith, while the Roman has. In
Grafton's view and from the standpoint of many professed Anglo-Catholics.
The doctrine of the papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of the
Blessed Virgin cannot bear the test of Catholicity. Neither can that of the
treasury of merits accumulated by the saints' works of supererogation, and
placed at the disposal of the pope, on which the modern system of
indulgences is based.
And while no one would question the marvelous grace bestowed on the
ever-blessed Theotokos, the Bringer-Forth of God, the assigning to her the
position and office of the neck of the mystical body through whom all graces
must pass from the head to the members, is no part of the original deposit
of the faith. It is not the language of the fathers to say "God has
constituted Mary as the ordinary dispensatrix of His grace," nor that it is
safer to go to the Blessed Virgin than to our Lord, or that "Mary so loved
the world that she gave her only begotten Son." "Mary is the most faithful
mediatrix of our salvation." The increasing push to declare the Blessed
Virgin as co-redeptorix, no matter how clever the explanation, is the
disturbing outworking of Marian veneration gone to the extreme. One can only
ponder what the Mother of Our Lord who uttered the words at Cana, "Whatever
He says, do it" thinks of this latest innovation.
To enter the Roman Catholic Church is to fully commit to these
later-developed dogmas, rather than keep them in the proper place of pious
belief or heresy as the case may be. It is painful to write this, for all
that is Catholic in the Latin communion we love, but in the current
circumstances, loyalty to the Catholic faith requires it.
Merciful Providence
If Anglicans are ever desponding, they have only to look to the past and see
how God has protected them to this point, even though by "schisms rent
asunder and heresies distressed." A branch cut off from the tree must
perish, but a living branch is known by its persistent vitality and fruit.
Assaulted from within, as seldom any portion of the Church of Christ has
been, during the past five hundred years, it has resisted all attacks and
emerged a victor, although fragmented and diminished in size (but not
fervor). Neither the assaults of Rome under Mary, nor of the Puritans under
Cromwell, nor the disaster of the non-jurors' withdrawal in the seventeenth,
nor the Erastianism of the eighteenth century, nor all the worldly turns and
combinations of the nineteenth and twentieth, have crushed out her
Catholicity.
And not least of God's goodness to her is seen in two great providences. The
first was the early death of King Edward VI. He was followed by Queen Mary
who is the subject of unhappy memory for many, but this was temporary. Had,
however, King Edward lived; the Church would have lost its Catholic
heritage. "With all the tyrannous spirit of a Tudor monarch and all the
narrowness and self-conceit of a reforming Calvinist," said Grafton, "the
King would have made the Church like unto the deformity of the Continental
reformers." "The continuity of the Church would have become so broken, and
her Catholic doctrine so marred, that she would have largely lost her
heritage and become a withered branch of Christ's Church. God preserved the
Church by Edward's merciful removal."
Another blessing Bp. Grafton deemed "great providential" was the denial of
the validity of our orders by Leo XIII. This might seem a curious statement,
but the pope's action helped to unite the Anglican Church's members,
painfully revealed to us the worldly policy that governs the papacy, and
impaired belief in the papal infallibility. Apostolicae Curiae helped to
fill the Church with new courage, and, fixing her gaze on her true mission,
to discern the mighty work of evangelization she may do for God. Had the
pope decided otherwise, it is impossible to estimate the strong tide of love
and trust that would have impulsively turned towards him.
But he did not so declare, and, now eyes are turned Romeward again as we
wait to see how this very thorny question is treated in the forthcoming
Apostolic Constitution. As noted in the previous essay, Anglicans know they
possess valid orders and sacraments. We can no more doubt this than the
existence of God or any essential fact of Christianity. So that when the
pope decided against what Anglicans knew, with a divine certainty, to be
true, they knew with the same certainty that he was not infallible. At the
time of Pope Leo's encyclical, for many, the luster of the papacy faded, and
the papal curia, looked at calmly and dispassionately, was seen to be but a
piece of skillfully constructed human machinery. This situation continues
today, and presents a major issue for clergy who cannot deny the validity of
their own Sacraments. Unless there is a resolution, corporate union with
Rome, without an act of utter cognitive dissonance by Anglican clergy
denying the validity of their very ordained lives, is beyond the range of
human possibility, and not the terminus of the Tractarian movement, or the
leading of Divine Providence.
Looking Eastward
But while this is so, there are brightening prospects in the East. There
have been friendly expressions of interest from the venerable Orthodox
Church in several of its expressions-the Russian Church Outside of Russia,
the Antiochian Church and the Orthodox Church in America. She says, "We do
not ask you, as Rome does, to 'submit' we only ask, "Do you hold the same
Catholic faith we have inherited from the Fathers? "If you do this, we are
brothers." When we consider that the East has not had to pass through the
convulsions of a Reformation, and has for a thousand years borne consistent
witness for the faith once delivered, and against recent Roman accretions,
"Anglicans", as Bp. Grafton said, "should be willing to free themselves from
their prejudices and somewhat self-conceit, and listen to her kindly
words.."
The Church, indwelt by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, is a living
organism, and we may trust the Voice of God speaking through her before she
was rent into Eastern and Western divisions. The Voice of God speaking to
the churches is not confined, as some Anglicans seem to think, to any
particular centuries. But in the seven Ecumenical councils we have the Voice
of the Spirit and in the seven holy mysteries, the means of grace.
I believe that the question presenting the most difficulty has to do with
the Filioque clause.. There is no difference in belief between many Anglican
scholars and the venerable East on the doctrine of the Filioque: without
Ecumenical consent it has no right to be in the Creed.
May God inspire the wise men of the Church to solve the difficulty. Each
church in the case of restored intercommunion would retain its own
independent government and liturgy. As was recently pointed out by a
representative of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, Anglicans and
Easterns must be content with agreement in the ancient faith, not in the
uniformity of its outward expression. While the faith is unchangeable, the
Church, as the bride of Christ, has been led to follow her Lord's life, and
sometimes has been more absorbed in devotion to His incarnation, sometimes
to His passion. The faith once-delivered abides from age to age; but
ceremonies and practices of devotion are the fresh outcome of the Church's
love. The East and the West have their own ceremonial traditions, and the
differences existing should not hinder the restoration of Christian
recognition and fellowship.
If a reunion of Christendom is to be attained
We should wait patiently upon the form and content of the impending
Apostolic Constitution, but it is difficult to see how the Roman Catholic
Church can concede on points of doctrine and discipline Anglicans cannot
accede to without ceasing to be Anglican. In the meantime, Bp. Charles
Grafton urges us to look Eastward. "If a reunion of Christendom is to be
attained," he firmly believed, "it will come through the union of the
Anglican and Eastern Churches. It is in this direction the safe guiding
providence of God directs His people."
Reunion of any kind will require largeness of vision and generous toleration
of unessential differences, and much of the charity that hopeth all things,
believeth all things, and of the faith that believes that with God all
things are possible. For so glorious a consummation Anglicans must be
willing to recognize the devotion and the orthodoxy of the Russian and Greek
Churches. The cause of the reunion of Christendom is the dearest to the
heart of Christ. What saints have longed and prayed for, let the Catholics
of today labor to accomplish. We can do much by learning more of the Eastern
and Western Churches and their worship, and studying their catechism. The
all-availing power of the Holy Sacrifice is ours and the promise of answer
to prayer in His Name. May the sacrifice of the altar be more frequently
offered for the reunion of Christendom, and the prayer of blessed Bishop
Andrews be more in use among us.
Bless, O Gracious Father, thy Holy Catholic Church; fill it with truth and
grace; where it is corrupt, purge it; where it is in error, direct it; where
it is superstitious, rectify it; where it is amiss, reform it; where it is
right, strengthen and confirm it; where it is divided and rent asunder, heal
the breaches of it; O Thou Holy One of Israel; through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Jesu hear, Jesu bless, Jesu answer our petition, for thy Mercy's sake.
Laus Deo.
____________________
[1] Based upon The Works of the Rt. Rev.. Charles C. Grafton (Volume 1),
edited by B. Talbot Rogers, New York: Longmans, Green, 1914, pp. 355-367.
This is the second reflection based on Blessed Charles Grafton's works.
These essays are dedicated to the Reverend Canon David F.T. Rodier, SSM. Si
Deus pro nobis quis contra nos?
---Rev. Canon Charles Nalls is a priest of the Anglican Catholic Church and
military chaplain. As well, he serves at the Church of the Ascension,
Centreville, Virginia, and is the director of several charitable and
academic organizations including the Canon Law Institute� in Washington,
D.C.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11508
Stanley F. Nelson
quite apart from Henry VIII and his sad behaviors and attitudes.
Anglican Christianity stands magnificently as one of three manifestations
(Rites) of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by our
Lord Jesus Christ: Roman, Anglican and Orthodox.
The Anglican Communion now needs governance and determinacy by its
Archbishops, gathered as its Assembly and voiced by its inwardly-selected
Counselor Archbishop (serving for five years, replaced by the next, in order
by eldest date of consecration).
The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to re-assert his primary responsibility
for The Church of England in England, and assume his rightful place in the
Assembly of Archbishops.
The Bishop of Rome has no call upon anyone in The Anglican Communion to do
anything or not to do anything.
Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Stanley F. Nelson
ACNA
- .. -- Tim .-.
> The English Reformation was historically proper and theologically
> necessary, quite apart from Henry VIII and his sad behaviors and
> attitudes.
> Anglican Christianity stands magnificently as one of three
> manifestations (Rites) of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
> Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ: Roman, Anglican and
> Orthodox.
>
> The Bishop of Rome has no call upon anyone in The Anglican Communion
> to do anything or not to do anything.
>
> Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus
> Christ.
> Stanley F. Nelson
> ACNA
Tim.
Stanley F. Nelson
wrote.
If you feel you must respond in some way, restore my post to its original,
complete content.
Stanley F. Nelson
ACNA.
- .. -- Tim .-.
> You do not have the right, nor were you given permission, to edit
> what I wrote.
People do it all the time on Usenet. I DID say I had deleted the rubbish
from it, it looks better without that.
>
> If you feel you must respond in some way, restore my post to its
> original, complete content.
No, I won't.
Tim.
>
> Stanley F. Nelson
> ACNA.
Dave Heil
What are you, Tim, some kind of control freak?
- .. -- Tim .-.
No, just someone who holds up a mirror to those who are.
Tim.
Dave Heil
Reread your exchange with Jim and see yourself for what you are.
- .. -- Tim .-.
I refuse to until YOU see yourself for what you are.
Tim.
Dave Heil
I'm the guy who pointed out your hypocrisy.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Tim.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
How clecer? Just repeat what he says.
Reminds me of when I was young in a school yard.
I would say, I'm rubber ans you are glue,
whatever you say about me, bounces off me
and sticks on you. HaHaHa. then I would
stamp my foot, and stick out my tongue.
Jim
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:06 pm, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dave Heil wrote:
> > > - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
> > >> Dave Heil wrote:
> > >>> - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
> > >>>> Dave Heil wrote:
> > >>>>> - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
> > >>>>>> Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
> > >>>>>>> You do not have the right, nor were you given permission, to
> > >>>>>>> edit what I wrote.
> > >>>>>> People do it all the time on Usenet. I DID say I had deleted the
> > >>>>>> rubbish from it, it looks better without that.
>
> > >>>>>>> If you feel you must respond in some way, restore my post to its
> > >>>>>>> original, complete content.
> > >>>>>> No, I won't.
>
> > >>>>>> Tim.
> > >>>>> What are you, Tim, some kind of control freak?
> > >>>> No, just someone who holds up a mirror to those who are.
> > >>> Reread your exchange with Jim and see yourself for what you are.
>
> > >> I refuse to until YOU see yourself for what you are.
>
> > > I'm the guy who pointed out your hypocrisy.
>
> > I'm the guy who pointed out your hypocrisy.
>
> > Tim.
>
Sorry, for the typos.
How clever? Just repeat what he says.
Reminds me of when I was young in a school yard.
I would say, I'm rubber and you are glue,
Dave Heil
Actually, you did no such thing. You're simply a pedant doing pedantic
things.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Tim.
Dana Prescott
being quite thoughtful and informative...so I'm distressed to see the
silly schoolyard bickering that has followed it. Actually, the whole
first page of a.r.c.e. threads for some weeks now has been colonized
and ransacked by our nut job asylum cases like "Sword of Laban",
"Duke" and "Old Man Joe" -- which is why I haven't been posting
recently. Has the "Dark Side" overtaken the rest of us? Please, folks,
re-think the way we're addressing one another. My suggestion is that
it behooves believing Christians to behave like CHRISTIANS...not like
demons in a scrum from hell! (LOL!)
- .. -- Tim .-.
Well, since he thinks as a child and speaks as a child, I will treat him as
one.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Well, since he thinks as a child and speaks as a child, I will treat him as
one.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
I am convinced that it is impossible for Heil to behave like a Christian.
Indeed, to date I cannot remember having seen anything remotely Christian in
any of his posts. He wants to behave like a child, ok, I will treat him as
one. Indeed, the right-wing are like children who want their own way and
when they don't get it, they stamp their feet and have a hissy-fit, just as
Heil is doing now.
1 Corinthians 13:11 (King James Version)
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 14:20 (King James Version)
20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye
children, but in understanding be men.
Tim.
Dave Heil
Are you determined to show us how childish you can be?
- .. -- Tim .-.
Dave Heil
You're rather large for a budgie. We'll have to get more newspaper.
- .. -- Tim .-.
cadfael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, so interesting to see how Christians are inspired to talk to one
another. It proves just how great the effect is of Christ in peoples
lives. No wonder people are coverting to Islam or just becoming
atheists.
Dave Heil
Pretty bird!
- .. -- Tim .-.
Pretty bird!
- .. -- Tim .-.
Heil hasn't ever said one thing that suggests to me that he is a Christian.
Rather, he is a right-wing activist and should be posting on political
groups instead of bothering the Christian groups.
> are inspired to talk to one
> another. It proves just how great the effect is of Christ in peoples
> lives. No wonder people are coverting to Islam
No chance! Mind you, I would have thought such as Heil might find Islam
right up his street, all about 'Submission' and the Qu'ran and rule
following.
> or just becoming
> atheists.
If a person believes in God, they believe in God. We can't really 'choose'
what we believe, we form that opinion because that is how we interpret the
world. Theists (like myself) in general believe that the Universe is a
product of sentience, whereas atheists in general believe sentience is a
product of the Universe.
Heil, on the other hand, just believes in controlling others because that is
what right-wing politics is all about.
Tim.
v1_0
you with experience. - anon
If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and
laughs, and there is no quiet. -Proverbs 29:9
If you argue with a fool, there'll be two fools arguing. - Limbaugh
-V
Archimandrite
"v1_0" <v1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4ae0803-6125-4975...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
***I wonder if Limbaugh got that from a Chinese fortune cookie???
v1_0
>
> > If you argue with a fool, there'll be two fools arguing. - Limbaugh
>
> ***I wonder if Limbaugh got that from a Chinese fortune cookie???
Perhaps he did. If so, he shows enough wisdom not to confuse the
source of the words with what they may be saying.
Archimandrite
***Limbaugh's words are sage. it is good advice not to argue with the fools
calling themselves "liberals."
Dave Heil
Timmy want a cracker?
Dave Heil
I am a Christian. That should suffice.
> Rather, he is a right-wing activist and should be posting on political
> groups instead of bothering the Christian groups.
This is not a moderated newsgroup and you have no power to direct others
to leave. What are you, some sort of control freak?
>> are inspired to talk to one
>> another. It proves just how great the effect is of Christ in peoples
>> lives. No wonder people are coverting to Islam
>
> No chance! Mind you, I would have thought such as Heil might find Islam
> right up his street, all about 'Submission' and the Qu'ran and rule
> following.
I'm not a Muslim. I'm an Anglican. What are you, some sort of control
freak?
I'm a free man. I don't live in a country with no constitution or bill
of rights--no offense. I don't have to submit. What are you, some kind
of control freak?
>> or just becoming
>> atheists.
>
> If a person believes in God, they believe in God. We can't really 'choose'
> what we believe, we form that opinion because that is how we interpret the
> world. Theists (like myself) in general believe that the Universe is a
> product of sentience, whereas atheists in general believe sentience is a
> product of the Universe.
>
> Heil, on the other hand, just believes in controlling others because that is
> what right-wing politics is all about.
I don't believe we've been discussing politics. Why do you keep
bringing the topic up? Do you have some overwhelming need to control
the discussion?
- .. -- Tim .-.
> - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>>
>> Heil hasn't ever said one thing that suggests to me that he is a
>> Christian.
>
> I am a Christian. That should suffice.
Hmm. So am I. That should likewise suffice.
>
>> Rather, he is a right-wing activist and should be posting on
>> political groups instead of bothering the Christian groups.
>
> This is not a moderated newsgroup and you have no power to direct
> others to leave. What are you, some sort of control freak?
No, not at all. However, IMO what you are expressing are right-wing
political views which have no relevance to Christianity. Hence (also IMO)
they are off-topic for this group. I can't, and wouldn't want to, stop you
posting, I'm just waiting for you to post something Christian. (That is,
more than just the statement above that you are a Christian).
>
>>> are inspired to talk to one
>>> another. It proves just how great the effect is of Christ in peoples
>>> lives. No wonder people are coverting to Islam
>>
>> No chance! Mind you, I would have thought such as Heil might find
>> Islam right up his street, all about 'Submission' and the Qu'ran and
>> rule following.
>
> I'm not a Muslim. I'm an Anglican. What are you, some sort of
> control freak?
No, I am not. But I think you are. I am expressing my view that Islam
seems more in line with your beliefs, going by what I have read in your
posts. You don't want me to express my views? Ok, what are you, some sort
of control freak?
It would seem that we are not only both Christians, but both Anglicans.
Do you want me to leave Anglicanism?
>
> I'm a free man. I don't live in a country with no constitution or
> bill of rights--no offense. I don't have to submit. What are you,
> some kind of control freak?
Why do you accuse me of being a control freak? I live in a country and
indeed a community of countries that protects the vulnerable and believes
all human beings have certain unalienable rights. (Ok, I know our
right-wing Tories here don't like that, but I think public opinion is
against them on those issues).
The control freaks here are the Tories, not the liberals who are in favour
of European human rights law.
>
>>> or just becoming
>>> atheists.
>>
>> If a person believes in God, they believe in God. We can't really
>> 'choose' what we believe, we form that opinion because that is how
>> we interpret the world. Theists (like myself) in general believe
>> that the Universe is a product of sentience, whereas atheists in
>> general believe sentience is a product of the Universe.
>>
>> Heil, on the other hand, just believes in controlling others because
>> that is what right-wing politics is all about.
>
> I don't believe we've been discussing politics. Why do you keep
> bringing the topic up? Do you have some overwhelming need to control
> the discussion?
Not at all. I just can't see anything particularly Christian in right-wing
views, and indeed find it impossible to reconcile them with Christianity.
Margaret Thatcher claims to be a Christian, but in all her years as Prime
Minister, I saw no evidence of it, except that she went to church.
If you want to explain to me how right-wing views are in line with
Christianity, go ahead, but that is only an invite, I wouldn't dream of
trying to control you, I just don't want you to control me!
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Davey want a cracker?
cadfael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Davey is a cracker :)
Indian Ocean Territory@limey.io aggreen
"cadfael" <cadf...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:8607fdc2-389c-40e4...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
***Saltine, or pumpernickle?