Canadian Anglican bishops like nothing better than to protest oil and gas pipelines in spite of the fact that the fossil fuel carried in the pipelines is the only thing stopping their heads freezing to their mitres.
The latest protest against the Coastal GasLink Pipeline has a new twist. It introduces the 2SLGBTQQIA element. Yes, I know this is a few more letters than we are used to but the Anglican Church of Canada prides itself on its inclusion, so the effect of a pipeline on 2SLGBTQQIA people (you know who you are) is a real concern.
My worry in all this is, why is there no “N” in 2SLGBTQQIA? For the necrophiliac community. Surely Anglicans should include those who are in a stable monogamous relationship and given to such affections: “till decomposition us do part” has a distinct liturgical ring to it.
Our ongoing concern is for the safety of all involved in this conflict, and particularly the unarmed, peaceful Wet’suwet’en land and water protectors and their allies. We share the concern that the MMIWG Final Report Calls for Justice 13.1-13.5 have not been addressed in the planning and implementation of the Coastal Gaslink Pipeline. We call on the governments of Canada and British Columbia, along with Coastal Gaslink to “complete gender-based socio-economic impact assessments on” this project and “include provisions that address the impacts of projects on the safety and security of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.”
This protest is completely dishonest as all appeals were dealt with by the courts and many of the natives involved are in full support of this project. Those involved in protesting are nothing less radicals who have no desire or intent on obeying any law except their own version – DO WHAT I WANT AND TO Hell with anyone who disagrees.
Meanwhile even the infamous CBC is questioning the progressive BS: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.5459587/people-are-afraid-to-speak-up-wet-suwet-en-member-defends-her-support-for-pipeline-1.5459595
When will these people running the AcoC wake and realize that they are not politicians, but are supposed to be servants of God? Never did God instruct us to engage in this kind of eco-terrorism, or whatever you feel like calling it.
What God did say is “go and make disciples of all nations”. Oh, but that would mean having to accept the fact that other so-called “faiths” are not legitimate and that those who follow those other “faiths” should be converted to Christianity. Which is something the AcoC is loath to do.
They’re not Anglicans or even Christians, they’re socialist humanists. The basic theology that about every priest I’ve ever met in the ACoC holds is that “love” is shared by everyone, atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. and that God just wants us to “love.” They ignore that the Epistles of John make it clear that love means following God’s commandments.
When it existed, the Soviet Union and other International Socialist organizations worked very, very hard to ruin the Church, and the fact is that they did. By the late 19th century, the Roman Catholics had accepted trade unions even tho unions are criminal conspiracies: there is one communion, we have it with Christ.
I spoke last year with an English Anglican who came to Canada to work, and I asked him if in England they still learned the 39 Articles and the Homilies, and he said yes. The ACoC is also influenced by the episcopal Church, I’ve had idiot Anglican priests (Deans of Cathedrals no less…) tell me that the Queen has no association with the ACoC. That’s bullshit:
“The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.” (39 Articles, Art. XXVII)
They’re used to just spewing this bullshit at the laity and not being challenged, if you challenge them on it, they act like you’re mentally ill, which is a typical soviet tactic. The problem is socialists and communists, all of the man vs. woman, indigenous vs. settler, gay vs. straight, this is how communists sew division, divide and conquer.
People need to understand that the ACoC is dead, and it is not coming back—the only thing that could revive it is a finding that the statutes governing common prayer extend to Canada and have never been specifically repealed, but even then, the use of the BCP is not enough, you need clergy who are not mentally challenged.
The other issue that underwrites much of the church is fetal alcohol syndrome. A lot of the clergy and laity have low-grade or more profound FAS/FASD. They are neurologically deformed, they’re never going to be capable of understanding faith and God like people who are neurologically normal do.
yup, yup and yup,,,,You know I think I/we need to change OUR attitudes as well-for the last dozen years or so I keep holding my breath, thinking all this crap is temporary and will pass,that things will straighten out in time……It won’t- THIS is the new reality-the inmates are running the asylum and will continue to for the foreseeable future, and thats that. Not just with the church but the whole Fu^&#()ed up world. Hunker down friends- keep the faith.
PS- regarding the Queen and her association with the church-I got the same speech from the Minister in my former church, and when I challenged him on it I got that exact same response- a blank, astonished stare, then the only thing he could say is NO NO- you are wrong She has NOTHING to do with the church- so yes, I am trying to practice my own advice by letting it go , but still pisses me off….pompous,smug sons of bitches
It’s treason right to the top—for Elizabeth II’s coronation, the Archbishop of Canterbury administered a counterfeit coronation oath.
The Queen’s coronation oath, was “modified without statutory authority” (researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00435/SN00435.pdf). As I understand it, an oath is warranted by custom (that is, ancient usage), or by statute (that is, an act of The Queen.). The Institutes of the Laws of England of Edward Coke, informs us that
“it is a rule in law, that ancient offices must be granted in such forms and in such manner, as they have used to be, unless the alteration were by authority of parliament.” (4 Inst. 75)
So it seems that to alter the terms of the oath, which must be subscribed by the Queen, except by act of Parliament, against this rule of law. Coke further speaks of oaths in General in this wise:
“A new Oath cannot be imposed upon any Judge, Commissioner, or any other subject without authority of Parliament…but the giving of every Oath must be warranted by Act of parliament, or by the Common Law time out of mind.” (2 Inst. 479)
“So as an oath is so sacred, and so deeply concerneth the confciences of Christian men, as the same cannot be ministered to any, unless the same be allowed by the common law, or by some act of parliament; neither can any oath allowed by the common law or by act of parliament be altered, but by act of parliament. It is called a corporal oath because he toucheth with his hand fome part of the holy fcripture.” (3 Inst. 165)
So, the following promise is without warrant of common law or act of Parliament, viz.:
“Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?” (https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953)
This section of the oath should be this:
“Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?”
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/introduction)
So what we are dealing with is intergenerational treason. The Coronation Services are held at Lambeth Palace, but they have not been digitized—I recall getting my hands on George VI’s coronation oath, and it was also counterfeit. We are dealing with decades of treason—it’s possible that Victoria was the last Sovereign to be given the proper Oath.
What I think unlikely, tho, is that the anglican clergy actually know this, they are just useful morons who have been made into priests even tho they don’t know Latin, don’t know Greek, don’t know Hebrew, don’t know anything but how to talk about “love,” which they think is shared by everyone except Christians who can read the bible.
And most of them don’t even believe the bible is literally true, so, like, what is it then? It’s just a collection of fables—fables that they profess to hate. So why don’t they just start their own churches? the fact is most of them are basically unemployable outside of the church. The Church Janitor has more transferrable skills, he does soemthing people need, he doesn’t just bilk lonely middle aged women with mental disabilities.
I see the Church of England has set a net zero carbon target by 2030. As in Canada, this may parallel their membership as well.
How about closing it all down now, then the CoE can say they over-delivered on their promise, long before 2030.
Now that was easy.