My Lord of Argentina has issued a pastoral letter including a series of specific responses to the real Primate of All Canada and the real Metropolitans of the several Canadian ecclesiastical provinces. An astounding degree of revisionism, really.
The pastoral letter is just the same old angry cant. It includes a few real howlers. For example:
Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it.Curiously, My Lord of Argentina assumes that the only authentic understanding of Christianity is one which is, in every detail, precisely the same as his. The prospect that his human perception may be less than exact is not to be considered.
The fact that the Church, over the preceding two millenia, has reinterpreted her understanding of slavery, of usury, of divorce, of any number of issues is irrelevant to the English Prelate in Buenos Aries.
The simple reality that some number of Anglicans in Canada disagree with him on one issue is justification for what is clearly and unequivocally an act of schism.
[I]t is not schism.Of course, in the Orwellian language of the "conservatives," nothing they do could possibly be wrong. They are justified in any outrage because they claim to be right. Just as the Puritans were right when they beheaded Archbishop Laud, no doubt.
The pseudo-Argentine prelate himself offers us a reasonable definition of schism:
Schism is a sinful parting over secondary issues.Yet somehow the sleeping arrangements at the episcopal residence in New Hampshire have become the primary issue in a Christendom. This issue, on which our Lord said precisely nothing, on which there are only a handful of references in scripture, all of them ambiguous, is suddenly the core issue over which Anglican Christianity must be rent asunder.
Ah, but the revisionism (or, to use the proper theological term, lies) continue.
If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.Problem is, Greg old pal, that the Canadian Church has never denied this. You and your schismatical allies repeat this canard over and over and over again. That does not make it true. It makes you liars.
One of the ironies of it all is that the closing comments from Venables purport to write off the considered and moderate pastoral letter from the Primate and Metropolitans of Canada.
This pastoral letter is a much different thing. For one, it doesn't tell lies about what other people believe.
But it is interesting to consider who these five signatories are.
- Two of them (Primate Hiltz, Lawrence of Moosonee and Ontario) are generally seen as moderate liberals on "the" issue.
- One of them (Stavert of Quebec and Canada) participated in the controversial consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, which I guess would make him a liberal.
- One of them (Clarke of Athabasca and Rupert's Land) is generally seen as a moderate conservative.
- One of them (Buckle of Yukon and British Columbia and Yukon) is seen as a hard line conservative, and indeed was part of the controversy early on when he offered to take on pastoral oversight of dissenting congregations in the diocese of New Westminster.
Conservatives in the Canadian Church are just fine, without any dubious "help" from ambitious foreign prelates from the Southern Cone or elsewhere. Otherwise, why would the conservative Metropolitan of Rupert's Land and the very conservative Metropolitan of British Columbia and Yukon have happily signed off on a letter telling Venables et al to mind their own business?