Random tidbits

One more:

On a personal note: My second grandson was born this week at 7.5 pounds. My daughter and the baby are just fine.

ACA and the "missing" link
In the recent post about the Anglican Church in America (ACA) voting to roam Romewards, I said, "Either way, the time has come to remove our link to the TAC/ACA from this Anglican blog. They have decided not to be part of the Continuing Anglican Church that adheres to The Affirmation of St. Louis. It is not our intention to direct people to Roman Catholicism, which they may find easily enough on their own without our presenting here what would amount to a seeming endorsement of conversion. We pray all will be well for them, and that they grow in God's grace."

In a comment we received the following reply.

"While it is a fully understandable rationale to remove the link to the TAC/ACA site, perhaps you should reconsider:

1. There are those, both laity and clergy, (in this jurisdiction) who have not the slightest interest in jumping 'into the abyss' and see fully what this nonsense is all about.

2. The 'remnants' shall recover from the present episcopate(s), (of these former Anglicans) and continue in Christ's Church, as a new ACA.

3. Ignoring the miscreants becomes a tacit denial of their behavior (which has been so well illustrated in this blog) and should be kept in the light of day.

4. In keeping the dialog viable, our brothers and sisters are reminded to keep the dissenters, in the TAC/ACA, in their prayers.

Father Frank +"

I can understand and sympathize with Fr. Frank's dilemma, which he shares with others in the same predicament. But, it begs the question, how can we recognize a jurisdiction without recognizing its bishops? At this time, we may not relate to the ACA as such by going around their bishops, neither can we appear to endorse the decision of their bishops. We do not presume to tell people they ought not to become Roman Catholic, but we do believe that the ACA bishops are promoting an attack on Anglicanism and its validity. Their decision amounts to a rejection of the theology we have demonstrated to be essential to the Anglican mind and ethos, and an acceptance of a system that considers our sacraments to be invalid. Their disservice to their own people is too great.

If "the dissenters in the TAC/ACA" (who do have our prayers, I am sure) cannot remain with their bishops, from whence can they receive Episcopal oversight and ministry in the future? Who will consecrate new bishops for them as a separate jurisdiction? Why should they continue as a "new ACA"? Is it not time to drop the separate identity? Are these not the same men, mostly, who brought you Deerfield Beach and a schismatic ecclesiastical identity in the first place? Is not their rejection of Anglicanism a clear signal of what was guiding them back then? Is it not a signal that now is the time to unify with the rest of your Continuing Anglican brethren under existing bishops who are united in a very real concordat, and who will not turn away from Anglican principles?

We have a light in the widow for you, and the soup is on the stove.

Contestants: Announcing the big challenge

The apologists for accepting Anglicanorum Coetibus assure their readers and hearers that they can be united with the See of Rome, but keep the treasures of Anglicanism. Does this remind anybody of words like the following? "As long as the grass shall grow, and the sky is blue" in the old treaties between the American "Indians" and the U.S. Government (what advice might Sitting Bull and Geronimo have for you?) We have been told over and over that Rome will guarantee our priceless Anglican treasures. But, it seems that the only treasure anyone can identify is one that the new constitution itself explicitly rules out: Married clergy from their formerly Anglican, under the Ordinariate, ranks, and that in perpetuity.

Here is our big challenge: All you Anglicanorum Coetibus Enthusiasts: If you can demonstrate from that constitution any specific Anglican treasures, even so much as one, I will make and post a video of myself eating my favorite hat, and I do mean a classy fedora-the only thing that Frank Sinatra left me in his will. But, there is one caveat.

If you quote merely the promises of ACA/TAC bishops, or RC bishops like the deluded Bp. Peter Elliot, instead of actually proving your case from the "Apostolic Constitution" itself, you will receive extra time in the Hell hole we know by the phrase, "the Romish doctrine of Purgatory." That is because, big mean rotten guys like us have the authority to distribute the demerits of sinners. I don't mean your run of the mill sinners either, or even notorious criminals like Al Capone. I mean those who achieved sins of supererogation, like the writers of the old TV show "Hazel," or the songwriters who came up with "Yummy, yummy, yummy, I've got love in my tummy." We are talking potential extra time counted in the millions of years; so you better back up your argument with the facts Buster!