May a Christian Engage in Active Civil Disobedience?

My long-time readers know that I have posted a number of articles here on the case for active civil disobedience under the broader heading of Christian resistance theory and practice.  I recently entered into a discussion on this question at my Facebook page with Archbishop Mark Haverland, the Presiding Bishop and Metropolitan of the Anglican Catholic Church, O.P.  Today Archbishop Haverland  posted an article about our exchange at his blog.  As currently written, the article refers to me as "Fr. Smith", perhaps the Archbishop's gracious intent to preserve my anonimity so as to keep me from being publicly embarrassed. :>)  However, I stand by what I have written and accordingly have no objection to having my real name attached to my argument.  The Archbishop and I have chatted about this today and he may edit his article accordingly.

As I recently explained, other duties have kept me away from writing much here at The Old Jamestown Church, and that has not changed.  I am under a mountain of obligations just now.  I do intend to publish a point-by-point reply to His Eminence's article, but I accordingly won't have time for it for awhile.  However, I am publishing here our entire exchange from my Facebook page, along with a few comments from other friends involved in it.  What I'd ask you all to do is to read the Archbishop's article and the two previous articles of his on civil disobedience to which he provides links.  Then come here and read the Facebook exchange, as it wll obviously serve as part of the basis of my forthcoming reply.

As mentioned in His Eminence's article, our exchange began with his response to the meme below.  I am currently involved in COVID-19 activism related to what I believe is the politically-motivated overreach of mainly Democratic governors, county commissioners and city councils in response to the virus.  One of the issues is their mask mandates.  I am absolutely convinced that the real science does not support the  recommendations of our state "health experts" regarding masks, and therefore that the mask mandate is irrational.  I also believe it is unconstitutional.  In addition to local activism, I have been posting comments, links to articles and memes on my Facebook page, including the one that touched off our exchange.   Here it is, followed by the text of that exchange: 

           

Mark Haverland Or that I have moderately good manners and care about the feelings of others....  

Christopher Little Allow me to respond by posting something a friend wrote a few days about the mask controversy:

"I don’t do crazy. I don’t care how comfortable it might make crazy people feel. Some people think that if you step on a crack you will break your mother’s back. I’m not going to avoid cracks just to make them feel better. They will just have to learn coping skills for their own psychotic manias. I’m not going to join them in their folly."

I realize I've stepped on some toes here, but I did it and will continue to justify it for two reasons, one, the adoption of moderately good manners and care about the feelings of others can only be taken so far, and relatedly, people need to be awakened from their slumber. Memes such as the offending one here is one way to do that on Facebook.

In connection with memes, I've posted a number of scholarly articles and videos that I believe wholly refute the "science" that our vaunted "health experts" say they are relying upon. I believe these studies show that the emperor has no clothes, and while that may both befuddle and offend the fans of the naked emperor, it's truth that is paramount, not people's feelings.

登入境外网络加速软件 I tried to explain "I don't do crazy" to someone the other day and they just could not grasp it. So frustrating. The constant propaganda and brainwashing has made it hard for many people to even consider that many "experts" have been wrong or else have been deliberately lying because of their political affiliation. -- The example of "don't step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back" is great . An example I've used is that the mask is a lucky rabbit's foot . Some well meaning , but gullible person says: "Here, take this lucky rabbit's foot and it will protect you from all manner of hoo-doo and floobershazam." Uh, no, sorry , I don't do superstition. And please don't tell me what you saw in the tea leaves or when you were reading your Tarot cards either. Not interested.

Mark Haverland  But nobody in the world thinks stepping on a crack will break anybody's back, while plenty of people believe that wearing a mask, if one is sick, lessens the chance that I will spread disease to others. Even if they are wrong, good manners dictates a reasonable accommodation to the mistaken feelings of others. In which case, my comment was, I think, a reasonable response to the meme. When in doubt, err on the side of kindness and consideration. Having said which, I am sure we both can agree to disagree agreeably.

Caoimhín P. Connell With respect, Y.G. (Haverland), helping people wallow in the mire of superstition and enabling their unfounded fear is not charitable. Bringing light to ignorance is charitable, thus breaking the chains of that ignorance and releasing the superstitious from their fetters.

登入境外网络加速软件 to  Caoimhín P. Connell I am not a doctor, but for years when I have visited people in the hospital with an infectious disease. I have been asked to put on a mask, for everyone's protection. I am not an expert, but it makes sense that a barrier that prevents water droplets from being as prevalent also limits the spread of disease. And people who ARE experts also suggest that that precaution is almost certainly helpful. So if one's common perceptions and expert opinion agree, there clearly is enough authority to suggest compliance for the sake of good manners with the wishes of others. And when public authority requires that, the authority of Romans 13 mandates such compliance to avoid sin. If you are arguing that CoVid-19 is not real, not contagious, or is not a potentially very serious disease - particularly for the elderly and for those with co-morbidities, then you up against every physician I know - and I know many.

Christopher Little But the issue, Your Eminence, is that there is no doubt. Like I said, you can only take good manners so far. The science simply does not support what our "health experts" say, the mask mandates are accordingly irrational and unjust, and many of us are simply not going to sacrifice *truth* and our liberty to the "mistaken feelings" of others. We need to be leading the way, not passively acquiescing to such ill-conceived mandates and thereby propagating falsehood.

Christopher Little Please listen carefully to what Rancourt says both about unbiased RCT studies and why the "health experts" should be questioned.

http://youtu.be/C1ODBTdNiG0

ANTI-MASKERS: RIGHT OR SELFISH?

登入境外网络加速软件 http://www.americanthinker.com/.../what_good_do_the...

What good do the masks do, really?

Mark Haverland Christians are obliged to obey even foolish and ineffective laws, so long as they do not mandate the performance of a clearly immoral act. The only moral disobedience permitted is the refusal to perform a positively immoral act (e.g., if the government commands that you abort a child or commit blasphemy or adultery). If the government required that we all wear orange beanies, we would be obliged to obey until we were able to vote them out of office As for the science, I'm going to go with all the physicians I know, the public experts, and public officials (of all political stripes).

登入境外网络加速软件 I simply don't agree with your interpretation of the Romans and other pertinent texts, especially given the American theory of the derivation of political power. I know you have written on your blog about this, but I have researched and written fairly extensively on this matter as well, with respect to Christian resistance theory and how it relates to the right to keep and bear arms.

Christopher Little The conclusion for me is that I am under no obligation to obey unconstitutional or irrational laws.

BTW, in many places around the country it is no longer possible to vote them out of office.

登入境外网络加速软件 to Mark Haverland But I AM an internationally recognized expert in respiratory protection and contamination control and although the tautological argument is made that there is "consensus" that community mask wearing slows the spread of the virus, no such consensus exists, and the scientific consensus is that community mask wearing promotes the spread of disease.

As a scientist, I'm held to an higher standard (from a liability perspective as well as a technical and moral perspective) and we advise our clients to follow evidence-based decision-making criteria and therefore do not wear masks.

Mark Haverland to Caoimhín P. Connell I take your expertise seriously and am not inclined over time to accept generally agreed upon ideas just because they are generally agreed upon. In this case, I will revert to good manners and continue to wear a mask when I go into a grocery store.

Mark Haverland Christopher Little This is good Americanism but bad Anglicanism. The sons of Locke are appalled as their children turn into followers of Rousseau. But they are all children of the Enlightenment. 

Christopher Little I've known for quite some that this is your position, but it is not mine. I don't believe there is only one Anglican understanding of this issue. That's why some Anglicans fought on the side of the colonists, drafted a constitution that is anything but monarchical, and fought on the side of the Confederacy, including Leonidas Polk, the "Fighting Bishop." Even the stalwart monarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn recognized that "anarchism" held a place in the monarchist framework as a means to check a king's power unjustly exercised.

So no, I am not about to be cowed by the assertion that my view isn't Anglican.

Christopher Little One more thing: your articles on resistance theory show that you recognize its roots in medieval theology, so you can't dismiss it as merely the brainchild of the Enlightenment.

Mark Haverland I have no wish to cow you or anyone. I would encourage you to consider the central errors of modern political developments and the anti-theological ire embedded in the thought of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and the rest. There IS only one classically Anglican theory, I think, in regard to obedience. The Deist Virginians were only nominally Anglican - they had to be to hold office. Religiously Jefferson and Madison and Washington all had abandoned Christianity by middle age. They saw some utility in the educative and moral influence thereof, but they were not in any serious sense Anglican or Christian. I have no problem with checking monarchical power: a mixed regime is usually superior to a purely monarchical regime: but 18th century Britain WAS a mixed regime with a limited monarchy, powerful Lords, a powerful Commons, and an official place for the Church in the constitution. To see the modern problem, start with Locke's first letter on toleration. The problem is very clear: the only 'heresy' is asserting that there is heresy and the only thing that is intolerable is asserting that somethings should not be tolerated. The only essential doctrine, in other words, is asserting that there are essential doctrines. There is our current world. We live in Lockeland, and its dissolution around us is simply the working out of its internal principles and confusions. The answer is not another version of modern ideology.

Christopher Little Again, you cannot reduce resistance theory to Lockeanism. It goes back from the Enlightenment to the Protestant Reformation to a stream of resistance theory running from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas. That is, it stems from *Catholic* theology. Now, I know from your articles that you conclude those Catholic theorists were in error. I conclude that they were right, based in no small part on biblical data. So you have chosen one theologoumenon and I have chosen another.

I would also say this: whatever you may believe about the secession of the colonies, I believe our constitutional system has successfully - thus far anyway and only generally speaking - protected the traditional rights of Englishmen whereas the Commonwealth and its vaunted monarchy have pretty much tossed them wholesale out the window. Most Commonwealth folks are mindlessly deferential to government, and this is an unfortunate vestige of the "Anglican" view as you understand it. The nation brought into bring through our secession remains the last, best hope for liberty in the world, and I believe that is by God's design.

And it's why I won't wear a mask, based on the science referenced in this discussion.

Mark Haverland There's actually very little in Thomas that supports a right of active resistance. The more I've read Thomas, the most he seems opposed. John of Salisbury is a more promising example for your case. He was special-pleading for Becket and Becket's ilk, and all of that gets swept up quickly into the issue of extravagant papal claims and the reasonable desire of the kings to control baronial and Church power. In a 'Thomas vs. Henry' fight, no Anglican in the 16th or 17th century would support the Thomas, whether Becket or More. There certainly is a Catholic case for active resistance. That's why Anglicans identified your position as the 'Jesuitical-Puritanical' view. Calvinists and RCs, yes. Anglicans? Not so much. On the more recent effects of the American vs. the English systems - I think you have a good case. But the fact that there are some good effects in fact from an earlier action only proves divine Providence, which neither of us doubts. As for Biblical data, again, Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Hammond, Taylor, the Wesleys interpret it the same way I do. I am content.

登入境外网络加速软件 I am content as well. The historical minutiae do not concern me; it is enough for me that there is a case for resistance based on both biblical precedent and the Church's reflection, which provide us with two theologoumena. One of these influenced both England's Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. The right to resist unjust and irrational laws is as American as pumpkin pie, and a good thing it is too if the thought of Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes et al. lead us to the conclusion that if the government requires us to wear orange beanies we are obligated to obey.

Mark Haverland  I would be interested in the limits to the supposed right to break the law. The Calvinists used to limit active resistance to cases when lesser magistrates led the charge, but you don't seem to support such a qualification. The 'Declaration' implies that it takes an extraordinary train of grave impositions and violations to justify rebellion, but again, you seem to think individual laws may be rejected. Is you argument, Father Little, that every individual is free to break laws that he deems unjust or finds irksome? Are there qualifications? And what are the Christian and Anglican authorities that support that theory? If this is too much for a Facebook thread, perhaps write an essay.

Christopher Little I might do that. In fact I came this II close to responding to your essays on resistance at my own blog, but got distracted and put it on the back burner. Maybe now is the obvious time, though at present I have more pressing matters to deal with.

As I mull over my answer to your questions, I'm thinking about starting at the patently absurd proposition that if the government requires us to wear beanies we are obligated to do so, and then working back from there. ;)

As to what "Christian and Anglican" sources say about my theory, well, I'm guessing I won't find anything in those sources that truly speak to the orange beanie example; that would probably fall, rather, under the category of common sense, that is, reason. (Hooker would therefore probably approve of my method.)

Reason: that is precisely why I said I won't obey unjust or *irrational* laws, not unjust or personally irksome ones. Please don't twist my words.

And yes, I don't exactly follow the Calvinist view on the fallback to the lesser magistrate as the sole recourse for resisting tyranny. This is due in part to our American "legal fiction" concerning the derivation of political power: People -> States -> Federal government. The Ninth amendment refers to certain unnamed rights retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment refers to powers retained by either the states or the people. There is no lesser magistrate here, but there certainly is a recognition of the rights and powers of the people. In our system, I think it's the county governments that are the kind of lesser magistrates to which that doctrine refers.

The long and the short of all this is that the people may assert certain rights and powers. One of those rights and powers would be to tell a government who required orange beanie wearing to go pound sand, and if it came to it, to rise up in revolt, with armed revolt as the last resort. And I don't particularly care whether such a belief isn't Anglican. I'm not infallible, but then again, neither are Anglican musings on political theory - or anything else for that matter. We Anglicans say that Scripture is the font of what we should believe and practice, and I think Scripture's answer on this looks significantly different than that of the Anglican divines you reference. As does the answer of reason.

Mark Haverland But everybody who wants to break the law believes he has a good reason for doing so. If the locus of the right to pick and choose laws and the right actively to disobey laws that are not immoral (e.g., demanding blasphemy) or 'indifferent' (wearing a hat or beanie is in moral terms just that) is the individual, then we seem to invite chaos. To explain your position, you'll need to show how you avoid that conclusion. The U.S. is, or was, a well-ordered regime. Here if the government seeks to infringe liberty unconstitutionally, then there are constitutional and legal remedies. The answer to the command to wear an orange beanie is not to break the law, but to challenge the law lawfully. Even if the command were intrinsically immoral as well as silly, traditional Christian civil disobedience doctrine requires that the disobedience be public and accepting of the consequences so as to prove sincerity. Which is why those who believed that a given war is immoral are not free to run away to Canada, but must stay, refuse a draft, but then accept punishment. If there are no real Anglican or Christian authorities for a position, then I return to the conclusion that it may be good Americanism, but isn't good Anglicanism. Hooker would not accept the idea that individuals have the right to pick and choose laws, deciding that laws they don't like may be refused as 'unreasonable' or 'unconstitutional'. Not even the Founding Fathers would accept such an argument.

Mark Haverland I would suggest you write an essay indeed. I may write on the same subject. I've dealt with the general issue of obedience and the general Anglican position traditionally called 'passive obedience'. I haven't written on the positions to the left of those Anglicans have favored - and the subject might be worth pursuing. I'll answer yesterday's question about Machiavelli later after reviewing. I haven't read 'The Prince' or the discourses on Livy in years and need review.

Christopher Little First of all I, reject the proposition that every person who breaks the law believing “he has a good reason for doing so” actually does have good reason. He may have some sort of “rationale”, but that doesn’t mean it’s based on either reason or a valid exercise of one of the class of unspecified rights referenced in the 9th Amendment. There is *good reason* to obey the traffic laws, and none of them violate constitutional rights. There is *no good reason* behind an arbitrary orange beanie law, and it is violative of a person’s right to wear or not wear a beanie of any color. I submit that is not a prescription for chaos.

Secondly, yes, there are remedies at law – except in cases such as when there are way more orange beanie voters than there are anti-orange beanie voters. No possibility of throwing the bum orange beanie tyrant out because too many irrational voters are on his side. And except when the courts have become hopelessly politicized. (Ahem.) That’s when the recourse to civil disobedience is taken. I don’t agree with your stance that for Christians civil disobedience must only be passive. Our revolution was anything but passive, and this idea of the legitimacy of active resistance is enshrined in our fundamental law, principally the Second Amendment.

Lastly, I bear back my former answer to you regarding whether my view is “Anglican.” I don't particularly care whether my position is or isn't "Anglican". I'm not infallible, but then again, neither are Anglican musings on political theory - or anything else for that matter. We Anglicans say that Scripture is the font of what we should believe and practice, and I think Scripture's answer on this looks significantly different than that of the Anglican divines you reference. As does the answer from reason.

We Anglicans are subject to the political milieu in which we live, and if we simply can’t come to terms with one of the basic facts of our American political system, which is that active resistance is justified in some cases, well, maybe we’d be happier living in the UK, the land of the Anglican divines you keep referencing. Things are just peachy for Anglicans there these days. ;)

Your Eminence, I believe that we are at an impasse here and further exchanges here would be pointless, though I will indeed take you up on the challenge of writing an article and posting it at my blog. Thanks for this challenging and irenic exchange.

"In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders. The term was originally used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and manipulation. The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is unsubstantiated." Wiki 

I have recently been unfriended and blocked by two Anglican priests with whom I have had close connection, one a young priest in the ACNA, and the other, sadly, canonically resident in one of the Continuing jurisdictions.  They have both become intoxicated by the cause, slogans and activism of BLM, without realizing that there is an important distinction to be made between the godly proposition that black lives do indeed matter and the violent and destructive Marxist principles that fuel so much of that organization, and those of  Antifa, whose communist ideology and violence has now been fully revealed.  The aforementioned former priest has a "Christian" Facebook friend who has adopted Antifa symbols as his profile and cover pictures.  He has exchanged pleasantries with him.  I have screen captures etc.  in case this priest reads this blog entry and tries to say it isn't so.

When they embrace Critical Race Theory and go protesting on the streets, however peaceful those protests are, they are playing into the hand of the radical Left, who mean ill not only toward traditional culture, society, and govenment, but toward Christ and His Church itself.

A time will soon come that will reveal not only their useful idiocy and shame, but even their betrayal of Christ, however much they say they love him.  Good intentions aren't an excuse. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with them.  These priests need to wake up, and soon.  (Matt. 7:22)

Greetings in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity!

As I noted in 登入境外网络加速软件 from last November, I have been intending to revamp this blog to reflect where I am developing theologically, which is in a decidedly Anglo-Catholic direction.  For those few of you who follow this blog, you will know that I have pretty much reversed course since being received into Continuing Anglicanism in 2011 as a stalwart Cranmerian.  Much of my writing here in the past few years reflect my struggle, and I have deleted several blog posts containing Reformed Anglican arguments that I simply don't espouse anymore.

I've not posted much since November for several reasons.   I've been known to take long sabbaticals from blogging in the first place, and secondly, I have been studying and practicing the things I need to do to grow as a priest.  The rector of our mission needing to move away in connection with a job, I have stepped in as the new rector and have been celebrating the Mass every Sunday since late October.  Thirdly, the events related to COVID-19 compelled me to become involved in the Reopen movement.  The reopening now well underway here in North Carolina, I feel I can turn my attention back to theological matters and those pertaining to the issue of Anglican identity.

I have two or three blog articles being written in my head at this point.  I hope to post them here soon.  I will also be posting some thoughts on some young "rising stars" of Continuing Anglicanism writing articles at web sites such as The North American Anglican, Earth and Altar, 如何访问谷歌网站-百度经验:2021-1-17 · 如何访问谷歌网站,很多时候我伊我伊需要访问一些国外的网站查一些资料,但是国内的网络环境是行不通的,下面我来分享一下 ... (the blog of ACC Archbishop Mark Haverland), 和平精英免费透视辅助手机版-和平精英免费透视辅助安卓版 ...:2021-5-14 · 和平精英免费透视辅助手机版app是一款非常不错的和平精英游戏辅助，用户使用和平精英免费透视辅助手机版app可伍随意找到自己附近的敌人并将其一枪爆头，喜欢玩和平精英的玩家可千万不能错过和平精英免费透视辅助手机版这款app啊！, and The Sacramentalists podcast.

I will also still be devoting much attention to the Anglican Church in North America and women's ordination.  In the past few months I have come to see that the situation in ACNA is worse than I previously imagined. 

Stay tuned.

The Embryo Parson

A paper just published by the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word (ACNA), refuting the recent work of ACNA theologians Grant LeMarquand and William Witt on the question of women's ordination.  Having only given the paper a cursory glance, it appears to be yet another instance of the kind of exegetical wars we've witnessed between Protestant innovator and Protestant defender of the status quo.   That is to say, it is a debate centered on biblical interpretation, with scant interest in the Church's tradition.  This is to be expected.  Dr. Witt justifies his innovation on the fact that he is a "Reformation Christian" who is simply discovering new light breaking forth from Scripture, while Bishop Dobbs and his Canon theologian are responding with biblical arguments refuting those set forth by LeMarquand and Witt.

While I am always happy to see Protestant defenders of the status quo go up against the innovators on this question, it always seems to me to be a case of a frantic Dr. Frankenstein trying to outmanuever his own monster.   Witt is right to see his argument for women's ordination as "Reformational", for the Protestant Reformation effectively untethered biblical interpretation from Catholic faith and practice, resulting in wave after wave of innovation on all sorts of matters of faith and practice since the 16th century. 

I will add this article to my right sidebar list of anti-WO works and sources below. 

Fr. Drew Collins on the Anglican Pastor Web Site

"The Anglican Pastor has tried to position itself as a quasi-official voice of the ACNA. The North American Anglican is far more worthy of that role and your readership."

Two More Responses to Emily McGowen on Women's Ordination

Two more responses to Emily McGowin:

Holy Orders and Headship, Branson Munson

God is Not Fair: Some Thoughts on Women's Ordination, Fr. Gerald McDermott

Also posted as a 1/20/2023 update to Responses to Emily McGowin.

Alice Linsley on Women's Ordination

Alice Linsely is a biblical anthropologist and former priest in the Episcopal Church.  She renounced her orders many years ago and is now an articulate defender of the Catholic Faith.  Read her new article at Virtue Online, "Ten Objections to Women Priests."

和平精英免费透视辅助手机版下载|和平精英免费透视辅助安卓 ...:2021-6-12 · 和平精英里众多周知有超多大神玩家，也有许多菜鸟玩家，但是，菜鸟就不配拥有吃鸡的梦想了吗？当然可伍，这款和平精英免费透视辅助，在线助你一臂之力，帮助玩家在线调节超多功能，灵敏度设置，自瞄设置，锁死设置等，让玩家轻轻松松体验到吃鸡的乐趣！.

Socks5伋理功能的设置方法-机灵伋理:2021-6-3 · 注意: 不提供境外伋理IP服务，不得利用本站资源做违法活动。机灵伋理ip产品提供:HTTP伋理,免费伋理ip,最新伋理IP,爬虫伋理,Socks5伋理,伋理服务器,动态ip伋理,ip加速器,网络加速器,ip修改器,ip转换器,修改ip软件,hauntip软件等服务

"Musically, all evangelicals are charismatics now."

"The church created the soundscape for Western Christendom because she cultivated her own musical life in the liturgy that united human voices with the angelic choirs of heaven. I can hardly imagine a more worrisome sign of worldliness, or clearer evidence of the church’s identity crisis, than our eager renunciation of our own soundscape and our determination instead to reproduce the world’s."

Note

In the coming days I will be revamping this blog somewhat, partly so that it more accurately aligns with where I have arrived theologically in my Anglican sojourn (here's a hint from a 2015 blog post as to the trajectory I was on then), and partly to clean up and weed out some things on the sidebars. 

Responses to Emily McGowin: Updated

A few weeks ago I posted this blog entry regarding an article at the Anglican Pastor blog entitled, "If Women Can Be Saved, Then  Women Can Be Priests", which was penned by Emily McGowin, a priest (according to the Neo-Anglican understanding of holy orders) in a diocese of the Anglican Church in North America named "Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others."  The next day I posted this comment from an REC priest that set forth a little history of said diocese and its bishop, Todd Hunter.  That history provides some necessary context regarding Dr. Gowin's ordination.

Happily, two new articles have appeared refuting the argument she made at the Anglican Pastor blog.  One is by Fr. Lee Nelson entitled,  "The Problem With Making a Patristic Argument for the Ordination of Women", and is hosted by Anglican Pastor but with a promise of a rejoinder from McGowin.  The other is an article at the Theopolis Institute by Fr. Blake Johnson entitled, "Sacramental Representation and the Created Order".

爬虫或日常，动态ip软件如何突破封锁限制？_黑洞伋理:2021-4-19 · 1 爬虫或日常，动态ip软件如何突破封锁限制？ 爬虫或日常，动态ip软件如何突破封锁限制？ ∵具体方法1 运用多lP： 1.lP务必需用，例如ADSL。假如有條件，我觉得还可伍跟计算机房多申请办理外 …

__________________________________________________

UPDATE:  Here is Dr. McGowin's promised rejoinder.  There are some great critical comments there.  One of them mirrors my own, which is that Dr. McGowin's argument is a colossal non-sequitur.  Meanwhile, The North American Anglican has published Socks5伋理功能的设置方法-机灵伋理:2021-6-3 · 注意: 不提供境外伋理IP服务，不得利用本站资源做违法活动。机灵伋理ip产品提供:HTTP伋理,免费伋理ip,最新伋理IP,爬虫伋理,Socks5伋理,伋理服务器,动态ip伋理,ip加速器,网络加速器,ip修改器,ip转换器,修改ip软件,hauntip软件等服务.
__________________________________________________

UPDATE, 1/20/2023:

Two more responses to Emily McGowin.

登入境外网络加速软件, Branson Munson

God is Not Fair: Some Thoughts on Women's Ordination, Fr. Gerald McDermott

Orthodox Anglicanism and the Benedict Option

Excellent North American Anglican article by 登入境外网络加速软件 about integrating the Anglican Way into the Benedict Option and vice versa. This is not to say that non-Anglican communions can't produce their own version of a BenOp community, but as an Anglican I have to agree with Rod Dreher and Fr. Tarsitano that frequent obervance of the Eucharist and the Morning and Daily Offices are key in re-creating a truly Christian culture that can face down secular "culture." There is power in both the Church's sacraments and her prayers.

See also Fr. Tarsitano's hard-hitting TNAA article, which should be read in conjunction with the article linked above, "A Continuing Anglican Communion: A Call to Arms".

With reference to the 登入境外网络加速软件 entitled, "Ora Pro Nobis?",  Fr. Ben Ben Jeffries has published this response, and which again has drawn a 登入境外网络加速软件.

Ora Pro Nobis?

The North American Anglican published an article two days ago entitled, "A Reformed Litany of the Saints: For All Saints' Day".  It was penned by The Rev. Ben Jeffries, a priest serving in The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), both as a pastor and as one of the  designers of the new ACNA Book of Common Prayer (2023) and Assistant to the Custodian of the new prayer book.

The thrust of Fr. Jeffries' article is that the responses "ora pro nobis" ("pray for us") in the Litany of the Saints is violative of Article XXII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which states in pertinent part, "The Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."  Accordingly, the response "Ora Pro Nobis" should be replaced with the response "Glory to God!"  Fr. Jeffries' argument is essentially an Anglo-Calvinist one, hence article's title, "A Reformed Litany. . . ."

Anglo-Catholic responses to the article on Facebook and elsewhere were swift and many, but this article from The Rev. Wesley Walker, "Ora Pro Nobis: A Response to Rev. Ben Jefferies' 'Reformed Litany of the Saints" is a tour de force.  Don't miss it.   Fr. Walker is a priest in the Anglican Province in America, the blogger at Earth and Altar: Catholic Ressourcement for Anglicans, and owner/operator of the new Anglican podcast The Sacramentalists.

又能捕鱼又能斗地主的软件 _又 能 捕 鱼 又 能 斗 地 主 的 软 件:2021-6-15 · 农业农村部：境外非洲猪瘟疫情传入风险增加 王骥跃：创业板改革 将加速创业板上市公司的分化 5月17日0-24时，吉林省新增本地确诊病例2例 丰巢快递柜收费，真不是那五毛钱的事儿 深交所：乐视网股票终止上市 港媒：香港考评局通识科两名高层已辞职

The Sacramentalists podcast.  This podcast began only in March of this year, but already it features some great episodes.  The podcast is owned and operated by Fr. Wesley Walker, Curate at St. Paul Anglican Church in Crownsville, Maryland (APA).  Here is its Facebook page.

"Fasten Your Seatbelts": Can a Woman Celebrate Holy Communion as a Priest?

A talk by Fr. William Mouser, Rector of St. Athanasius Anglican Church, Waxahachie, TX, Orthodox Anglican Church.  Fr. Mouser presented this at our OAC Clericus last weekend.  Please visit Fr. and Barbara Mouser's web site, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The religious left cares nothing about any of this, obviously, but the so-called conservative Anglican advocates of women's ordination are so totally oblivious to the deep theological basis for ordaining only godly males to clerical office -- with its *cosmic implications* - which Fr. Mouser describes here.  They will have a lot of explaining to do before the Great Throne of Judgment, but the explanation will not suffice, and they will find themselves eternally ashamed.  God be pleased, what we know from I Cor. 3: 12-15 will apply to them. :(

It's and hour and seven minutes, but I encourage you to make some time to view it.

(Fr. Mouser warned us to "fasten your seatbelts", because the "P      word", among other things,  was coming.  It was one of the most powerful presentations I've seen.)

Do Not Miss This Sermon

It was delivered during Morning Prayer at our Orthodox Anglican Church clericus this weekend, which was held at St. Athanasius Anglican Church in Waxahachie, TX, by the Rt. Rev. Robert Todd Giffin, Ordinary of the Diocese of Mid-America, APA. St. Andrew's Theological College and Seminary conferred an Honorary Doctorate upon him during this service. He has important words for the Continuing Anglican Church.

The video was orifinally hosted by the SATCS Facebook page.

"To not only proclaim the Christian foundation of one’s country but actually rebuild the nation according to Christian principles was bound to raise the ire of the jaded secularists who are successfully presiding over Europe’s dying post-Christian culture."

Know hope for a new Christendom.

登入境外网络加速软件

on the article by Emily McGowin referenced below:

I read the article by Emily McGowin. The diocese she is in is run by Todd Hunter. Bishop Hunter is a product of the Vineyard/Calvary Chapel movement. He was received into AMiA in 2008 and made a Bishop in 2009. He came into the ACNA in 2012. His understanding of Anglicanism is nil. I watched an interview he gave around the time AMiA made him a Bishop. He freely admitted to not understanding the sacraments. One comment that stands out was how he still did not understand the need of confirmation. (He was a priest at the time). The AMiA parish in which I watched this interview with AMiA clergy and laity was then called Holy Trinity in Pensacola, Florida. It is now called The Mission. I was newly priested and the only one to vocally challenge the thought of letting this man be in charge of anything in the Church. Some of his other theology was also terrifying. So her theological ignorance, maybe willful ignorance, is honestly arrived at due to her theological "father". In the article Ms. McGowin takes partial quotes attributed to St Gregory of Nazianzus (she gives a very vague reference hard to research), Eph. 5:22, and Galatians. She confuses salvation with function and makes great leaps in logic and reason. How she did not hurt herself in the strain is amazing. For full disclosure I am a priest in the ACNA, the REC in particular. The level of theology shown by McGowin is typical of the ACNA. I second Fr. Little, if you have a choice between the ACNA and the Continuing Churches in your location, go with the Continuing.  I fear the ACNA due to the embrace of non Anglican and in some cases non Christian theology is becoming white washed sepulchres. And for that I grieve.

While I cannot confirm all the specifics in this assessment, it is true that Bishop Hunter was received into the AMiA in 2008, made a bishop in 2009 (!), left AMiA for ACNA in 2012 and is representative of all that is wrong in the Anglican Realignment.   The Diocese of the Churches for the Sake of Others (C4sO) is apparently named after a "ministry" he created before he was received into the AMiA ("Church for the Sake of Others").  It all speaks volumes. 

So this deacon/"scholar" from C4sO simply advances all this pathology in her article today at Anglican Pastor.

Like I said, steer clear.

The Anglican Pastor Blog and Women's Ordination

An Anglican Pastor blog article published today, If Women Can Be Saved, Then Women Can Be Priests, is representative of why I removed this blog from my list of reputable Anglican online sources. "If women can be saved, then women can be priests." Talk about a whopping non sequitur of an article title, and when you dig into the content of the article you'll encounter a shameful piece of theological legerdemain as well. Her argument only mimicks that of the small but vocal nest of feminists I encountered when I was in the Orthodox Church. The fact of the matter is that there is zero, zilch, nada support in the Fathers for women's ordination. It's why they never ordained one.

The article is written by one Emily McGowin, a deacon in the oddly-named "Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others", one of the virtual dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Her bio there, as elsewhere around the Web, reports that she "is a teacher and scholar of religious studies and a theologian in the Anglican tradition."

Well, first of all, the "Anglican tradition" knows nothing of the ordination of women to the ranks of clergy, deacon, priest or bishop.  The ordination of women in Anglican churches is a late uncatholic monstrosity, dating back only to the 1970s. 

The blog's founder, Fr. Greg Goebel, is apparently pro-WO, though this disclaimer is given at the head of the article:

Editor’s Note: Anglican Pastor does not take a site-wide position on women’s ordination. We do, however, require both clarity and charity. The piece below meets our standards. We ask that your responses to it do so as well.

The fact, however, that Anglian Pastor has chosen to give her a forum is damning enough. It doesn't matter that he allegedly allows opposing views.  If you put some uncatholic thing out there as something to be seriously considered, your disclaimer is meaningless from a Catholic point of view, and Anglicans claim to be Catholic, something that is evident not only from Anglicanism's theological history but also from the fact that Anglicans pledge this when they recite the Creed every Sunday: "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not ordain women and never will.  The issue simply is not up for discussion, the protestations of Neo-Anglicans notwithstanding.

With respect to their protestations, Mrs. McGowin's Neo-Anglican view is representative of the theologically and ecclesially troubled movement known as Protestantism.  One of the pathologies of the Protestant Reformation is that it eventually came to embrace pluralistic theologies, quite in accordance with its principle that well-meaning scholars could arrive at differing stances in their quest to discover "new light breaking forth from Scripture" and hence could posit new understandings that should be classed as adiaphora. The Protestant theological academy thus supplanted the authority of the Fathers and the Church's bishops.  That this is so is evidenced in the article, where the author cites the pro-WO ACNA theologian Will Witt, who warmly speaks of 登入境外网络加速软件

However, as Newman remarked, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." There is nothing truly traditionally Anglican or Catholic in this article.  Those who are interested in becoming authentically Anglican should steer clear of Realignment Neo-Anglicanism, and should look to Continuing Anglicanism instead, where the Catholic faith is held and where, accordingly, we recite the Creed with integrity.