Today, the joke known as the “church” of England has proceeded to the demolition of another taboo, and appointed the first joke bishopette.
It was a long march: in the Seventies, the joke “church” first stated priestesses were, in principle, a joke, and therefore not unfit for them. In the Eighties, the first joke deaconettes made their appearance. In the Nineties it was the turn of the joke priestesses, a concession obtained against the promise that there would never be joke bishopettes. In the Tens of the new century, we are there at last.
The next stops on the road to equality: the first transgender bishop, the first dog mounting bishop, and the first incestuous bishop. At which point cats and dogs owner will, no doubt, become very loud, defending the rights of their own good creatures against the lack of inclusiveness of the “church” of England. And why not, in the end. If you want to be inclusive, be inclusive all right. There were no cats and dogs among the Apostles, but no women either, so it's not clear why the discrimination.
Why do I tell you all this?
Because otherwise you wouldn't even notice, that's why.
The remaining Anglicans will also be relieved: now that their new bishops will soon be, to possibly 50%, wonderfully conversational, tea-drinking ladies completely allergic to any form of Christian orthodoxy, they will feel even more good as they go around completely ignoring Christianity as they do already.
In all this, the Country barely notices. The so-called c of E isn't even able to elicit any kind of mass approval when she does something so evidently anti-Christian. The masses merely notice (If they get the news) that the Anglicans are now even further away from Christianity and immersed in the world. No need to waste time on them, then: the world is around all the time anyway.
An irrelevant organisation wants to become “relevant” by being changed by the world it states it want to change. The irony does not escape the Country. A country which is barely noticing what those bunch of nincompoops are doing.
Say hello to the first joke bishopette.
I am sure she is good at light conversation.
Justin Welby, the man masquerading as the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, has given another example of his and his Mickey Mouse church's diabolical disorientation.
Welby is at the head of a motley group of heretics with such huge differences among them that they are not anymore recognisable as members of the same sect, whilst many of them are certainly not even recognisable as Christians.
The way Welby reacts to the situation could never be by defending Christian values, of course; it is doubtful whether he believes in God, and if he does this deity can only be a homemade concoction of half-backed common places. What he does instead is, in pure Anglican style, trying to make everyone happy.
If you follow the link (warning: the rag has often indecent images or content in its side links) you will immediately see what I am talking about.
Some of his people are afraid of apostasy, but some others don't want to become “irrelevant”. The coE must embark on a journey that tries to have Christianity on board, but who knows where the journey will end (hell, methinks). Some will do the one thing, some the opposite; we must accept it, because doing as one pleases is our religion, says Welby in so many words.
He also says things so outlandish you wonder about his drinking habits. Those who defend Christian values on so-called same-sex marriage – sodomy seems not to be a problem for this man; homosexuality is probably a gift from God – might be called “racist”, but he does not spend one single word against the accusation. On the contrary, the man lets it transpire that this is cause to serious concern for him. Is God racist? Hhhmmm, interesting question… we must answer it whilst remaining “relevant”, of course, then it should never be said that to us Christ comes first. Particularly if we are called “racist” a consequence.
Christ or relevance? In this question lies all the – let me say it again: diabolical – confusion of the so-called church of England; once at least a Christian outfit, if an heretical one, and now just a bunch of ridiculous clowns – many of them homosexual, or even sodomites – in drags.
The ridiculous outfit commonly going under the name of “Church of England” is considering changing its rite of Baptism.
The reason openly adduced for this is that as many parents do not go to church anymore, they are not properly informed about the meaning of certain words and the theological relevance of certain phrases.
Sin, for example, might be expunged. You see, the poor parents might feel insulted by the idea that they are sinners. Then, there is the thing with the submission to God; which, we are informed, is a sensitive issue; particularly with women, because Anglican women are even more allergic to any form of submission than Anglican men. Who does He think he is, this God, to demand submission of them? Pah! He should just try to get it from them, they will show Him as they did their husbands! Submission! Really?!
What is extremely funny to Catholics is, actually, perfectly natural to Anglicans. A wordly religion will adapt to the world without seeing anything strange in it. Today the very concept of sin is to be kept away from the customers faithful as if it dirtied them; tomorrow, the Cross might well go if they find it offends their sensitivity; the day after tomorrow, every mention of Christ will be expunged, less the family members of Muslim or Buddhist or other persuasion or of no persuasion at all feel offended by such an intolerant, “judging”, and clearly homophobic man.
The saddest thing of them all is that even Anglicans who care for God – and who rightly protest against the planned changes – are unable or unwilling to see what abject submission to the world their own shop incarnates and witnesses day in and day out. In this case, this abject submission is proclaimed quite openly, as the most natural of things. “Look – they say – we can’t ask a woman for submission, can we now? You got to be joking! Have you ever met our wives?”.
The so-called Church of England, an outfit that bears its absurdity and ridicule in its own name, capitulates to the world in the most natural manner. Which is what they have done since they were born, and the very reason for their existence.
We Catholics are living very sad times; but we know that the Depositum Fidei will, like a block of granite, resist every attempt at domestication. The Church and Her Truth will never die and will never be defeated. Not even a drunkard, homosexual, paedophile, communist Pope could change anything in the way the faithful – notice the word: faithful – understand and transmit Truth.
This is not so by the Anglicans and every other Protestant outfit out there. The storms of fashion and popular approval will always, at some point, sweep them away. What has become of the Quietists? Have you ever met a Puritan? How many Methodists or Quackers of young or middle age do you know?
The Anglicans will be the next to go.
Good riddance. There is no need for any religion of wordliness.
George, the baby who is supposed to, one day, open schools and kiss babies as the King of England, will be baptised today.
He is already three months old. But hey, there must have been more urgent things to do these ninety days.
I have no idea how long did it take before former heirs to the throne were baptised. It can be Protestants were as bad as that a long time ago, and I wouldn't be too surprised.
Still, I cannot avoid seeing in a baptism that takes place three months after birth, without anyone seeing anything strange in that, another sign of the decline of Christianity.
This blog post is written to charitably help the followers of an heathenish cult calling itself “church of England” (small “c” is mine) to separate themselves from it before their day comes, because the punishment might well be horrible and eternal.
The way the head of the so-called “c of E” disregards the basics of Christianity is such that no one can claim anymore to believe in Christian principles and in this man's rambling at the same time.
When the leader of a cult known for changing his mind about almost everything under the sun (say: divorce, priestettes, and now bishopettes) arrives to the point of saying, as if it was a matter of course, that “society has evolving views on sexuality” without a hint of condemnation of the thus changing view (and note he does not say “changing views”, he says “evolving views”) you know to him either God doesn't “evolve”, but society does, or the Commandments themselves must “evolve”. When he says the opposition to so-called “same-sex marriages” (not the sodomy in itself, of course! God forbid! How “homophobic”!) is seen by some as “akin to racism” without openly attacking their sodomitical prejudices, you know he is preparing to a more or less open volte-face. When he says he is against same-sex so-called marriage but condemns as homophobic the Christian society of the past, you know he has already sold himself to the enemy.
We complain about our (admittedly: disgraceful)
Pope bishop of Rome, but we as Catholic have the saving grace of a doctrinal structure no Pope can change. The Proddies don't think that way. Their “evolving” apparently includes the sixth and the ninth commandment, which can be deprived of any meaning simply because they “must face” that society has “evolved”.
Heavens, what a buffoon. And this would be a Christian? Most Muslims must be far more Christian than this chap, because they at least share many of the norms of traditional Christian morality without even believing that Christ is God; whilst Welby claims to believe that Christ is God, and denies Him to adore the golden calf of popular opinion and “evolving views on sexuality”.
Seriously. These people aren't even Christians anymore. They are jokers in fancy dress. They can't even remember the basics. They consider approval of perversion an “evolution”.
How little are the salvation chances of people going to the grave identifying themselves with such views? How many of them already share these views, and how many more will do so in future?
Anglicanism has become a heathenish cult of man with no resemblance anymore to any Christian thinking worthy of the name. What a bunch of clowns, what a cartoon “religion”.
Abandon them as long as you can, or die in communion with them at your peril.
Some weeks ago I chanced to read something truly funny, and now is the time to spend two words about it.
The news was that a US Politician (I think he was a Congressman), a Republican, announced he would switch allegiance on the matter of so-called “gay marriage” after learning that his own son is a pervert.
I very much doubt the discovery of one's own son's sexual perversion can come so sudden; I also doubt it could have come at a (cough) more fitting time for a Republican politician, as the so-called GOP is severely tempted to prostitute itself to the fashion of the time. But truly, it is not about this.
What leaves one breathless is the excuse that was used by the politician to switch side. It is as if the man had explicitly said that one's own children are the measure of Right and Wrong, and therefore the “discovery” of the son's perversion necessarily leads to the father's approval of it.
Besides having nothing to do with fatherly love, this is absolutely nothing to do with logic. Homosexuality is either right or wrong, it is not right or wrong depending on one's son's “preferences”. Actually, if it were so it would logically follow that a GOP politician respectful of the democratic process would still have to be against sodomarriages, as it cannot be doubted the overwhelming majority of the population is straight.
The stunning thing is also that such a politician would have the guts to say something like that and stay in politics, after admitting he has no values of his own even in what concerns what every Republican politician must admits are supreme values. What if he discovers his son takes drugs? Or is a pedophile? Or sleeps with dogs?
We live in an age that will be remembered for an obstinate refusal to think, and an utter abandonment for senseless emoting. The volte-face of the above-mentioned politician might well have been the result of a clever calculation, but there is no excuse for those among his voters who will continue to support him because hey, his son is inverted.
These are the most clearly defined values and choices of our time, and of every time. A democracy that leaves the decision about them to one politician's son being attracted to other men, or to children, or to dogs is a democracy heading towards self-destruction.
If I were Anglican, this would be worth a really good bottle.
It would appear that Rowan Williams has decided to take himself out of the embarrassing situation he had put himself in by doing what the likes of him – people unable to decide, incapable of taking a stance and constitutionally inept at leading – generally end up doing: hook it.
In future he will bore university students, we are told, and whilst I can’t envy them, I would suggest that in their tribulations they reflect that through their sacrifice a great embarrassment for Christianity has been taken away from a position of I do not say importance, but public relevance.
Like his predecessors, Rowan Williams has ceaselessly worked at making himself and his mickey-mouse church utterly and completely irrelevant. His intervention in favour of Sharia-law will be remembered as the Jimmy-Carter-moment of British Anglicanism, the point of deepest tragedy and humiliation; but one must say that during his tenure, RW has consistently worked at never deciding anything, never daring to displease anyone, and waffling around nonsense of such incomprehensible stupidity that not even his Anglican fans had the nerve to declare that he was saying anything astonishingly intelligent, but oh so difficult to grasp anymore.
Under his tenure, the Anglican Communion has all but officially imploded and within his own shop, the ambiguity about sodomites wanting to be clergymen and bishops has reached levels considered ridiculous even by Anglicans. He has failed in everything, hasn’t given a line of conduct or a guidance, hasn’t said what he stands for, hasn’t given any indication of how he wanted the so-called church of England to be. Oh, but he has talked a lot, and written – perhaps – even more. No doubt, he’ll be mightily pleased with himself. Now the ship is half-sunk and he takes the lifeboat, leaving others to cope with the mess he never wanted to address. Well done, skipper…
I would almost wish the Anglicans – the few serious, committed believers still out there – that his successor will be a man of strong Christian convictions, that is: something RW never allowed himself to be, because it would have been offensive to non-Christians. Almost, I say. In fact, the best thing that can happen to them is that some trendy sodomite – or friend of sodomy – is called to succeed the Muppet Man, so that the few honest Anglicans remained may be exposed to the tragedy of heresy and secularist infiltration in one go, rather than in installments. It might do them some good after all.
Good riddance, Mister Rowan Williams: we will miss the comedy factor.
His farewell speech is at the beginning of this post. Loads of clarity and entertainment factor, as always.