The Left Hand
My observation about Low Church does not apply, of course, in modern Gaffe-Con circles, where the word "orthodox" is spread so thin that orthodoxy itself becomes slender, slight and lighter than air, with a girlish figure. A body that includes Anglo-Catholics and Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney Australia, is not embracing High or Low Church, but new animals altogether as yet unnamed by Adam. Dr. Jensen allows "lay celebration" in his diocese, and that is why he doesn't need women's "ordination." He has no concept of holy orders at all, and would have been jailed in England back when a State Church was really a State Church.
There was a time when Anglican Comprehensiveness meant that the worship of both Low and High Churchmen need not lead to division in the Catholic Church- that is, as Anglicans defined "Catholic Church." But, for the Gaffe-Con folks, Low Church means High Church Baptistry, with infant baptism. This is why Dr. Jensen wears the traditional vestments of a Baptist preacher, no doubt. A few years ago he preached a sermon about why sacraments have nothing to do with salvation, which means that he rejected the Anglican Catechism, that short catechism in the Book of Common Prayer for confirmands.
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord."
"As generally necessary to salvation." That seems clear to me.
The bottom line here is simple. These modern day Anglican conservatives cannot define the terms of debate for us. Their usage of such words as "orthodox" or even "conservative" is entirely unacceptable. They may call themselves Evangelical, Protestant or Reasserter. But, we cannot accept their terms, or discuss doctrine by their definitions.
The Right Hand
The Romeward-Bound Anglicans suffer from an inferiority complex. When Roman Bulldog polemicists beat them up, they come back meekly and beg for more. No wonder they get what they ask for. They should answer the idiotic, nit-picking, historically erroneous, academically embarrassing and theologically inept Bull, Apostolicae Curae with both appropriate laughter and derision, and then quote the factually accurate, scholarly superior and theologically sound Saepius Officio. But, instead, they worry. Perhaps they did not read the Anglican response, or even know about its existence. By the way (attention up in Canada), no Continuing Anglican bishop has any business mentioning the 1896 Roman Bull (I did not make up that word, so don't blame me) unless he quickly mentions the 1897 Anglican Response in the same breath. Let the Romans make their own bad case without giving them help- for crying out loud.
Stop trying to out-Catholic the Romans by their own terms. Don't you know that faithfulness to our own patrimony does that automatically? This is true whether you use the Missal or just the Book of Common Prayer, whether you celebrate in a chasuble or merely a surplice and stole. The religion of Roman Catholicism began at the Council of Trent, and continued to embrace innovations, inventing new dogma like papal infallibility in 1870, and then leaning towards Cardinal Newman's theory of Doctrinal Development out of necessity. That is because their innovations are as obvious as those of Protestant sects. But, real Catholic doctrine, as taught in the Bible, the Creeds and Councils, is what our own church tradition has aspired to all along.
If you want to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary because of your faith in the Incarnation, do so with wisdom, not because you think Rome gets to set the terms. If you want to think about the intermediate state, think Biblically and Patristically, not in terms of "temporal punishment." If you want to teach potential Anglicans use the Offices of Instruction, the Catechism in the BCP, and our wealth of Anglican sources (including modern writers such as the late Fr. Louis Tarsitano, or Archbishop Haverland of the ACC). If you use The Catechism of the Catholic Church you should not need to wonder why your congregation fails to grow, while the local Roman Catholic parish obtains the people you were teaching.
It is not necessary to enter into doctrinal discussion by allowing either the Reasserters or the Romans to define the terms. The scholarship and theology of modern times has no finer jewel than the Anglicanism we continue. It is time for us to define some terms.