tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post114030254326682055..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Still I say Swim the Tiber without meFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1315770278556015232009-09-10T10:58:56.649-04:002009-09-10T10:58:56.649-04:00Yes, it could be those things. It is so easy to re...Yes, it could be those things. It is so easy to react to such doctrines without evaluating them. It is easy to mistake them for new ideas in the 16th century.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48947975992693747052009-09-10T09:23:50.636-04:002009-09-10T09:23:50.636-04:00Fr Hart: you may be right about the alleged heres...Fr Hart: you may be right about the alleged heresies of the Anglian Reformers, but I was thinking it had something to do with the doctrines of Original Sin, Predestination, and Justification by Faith Only, taught in Articles IX through XVIII. <br /><br />It is far easier to hurl out blistering invective than to learn what Biblical teaching and the Ecumenical consensus really is (singular verb deliberate).<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37870385856799009572009-09-10T09:14:51.899-04:002009-09-10T09:14:51.899-04:00Canon Tallis: I have on occasion, and not for ove...Canon Tallis: I have on occasion, and not for over 20 years, received Holy Communion from RC altars. I did so on a regular basis when I was organist in a RC church. But is it spiritually healthy to receive communion with people who defy the discipline, stated in unmistakable language in the front of the missalette, of their own Church? I too have known RC's who would be "offended" if you do not go to communion. But they were just as eager to share the Lord's Body with unbaptized and unbelieving Jews and Buddhists. If your monastic friends were offended, that's tough. It is sometimes wrong to give offense, and sometimes wrong to take offense.<br /><br />One more thing which makes me skeptical of ecumenical discussion and proposals with the RCC is that I always wonder which RCC are they talking about? The Church of Benedict XVI or the Church of the USCCB? The two are hardly the same.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52320754364553389432009-09-10T01:27:52.231-04:002009-09-10T01:27:52.231-04:00Fr. Wells,
I am in awe of your way with words. I...Fr. Wells,<br /><br />I am in awe of your way with words. I hope you don't mind but I swiped the last paragraph of your 5:32 comment and posted it on MY blog - it is that good.<br /><br />WillWillhttp://prydain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80662001199798453172009-09-10T01:05:18.089-04:002009-09-10T01:05:18.089-04:00Fr. Wells wrote:
I intensely resent the repeated ...Fr. Wells wrote:<br /><br /><i>I intensely resent the repeated allegation that the authors of the 39 Articles were closet heretics, especially when those 16th century Anglican worthies affirmed the full Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the anicent councils. It is so easy for arm-chair theologians and internet warriors to hurl anathems at men who experienced exile, persecution and sometimes the stake for a Biblical and thoroughly Patristic faith.</i><br /><br />Unless I am very much mistaken, the alleged heresies boil down to something having to do with the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Most probably, the supposed heresies are because Anglicans never tried to define and describe the Sacrament beyond the actual limits of revelation as understood by the Church in the times of the Fathers. Frankly whether or not some Anglo-Catholics like Cranmer's Eucharistic theology (as repeated and somewhat expanded by Hooker), it simply cannot be called heresy by any true standard. heresy it was not-not at all. And, frankly, I strongly affirm their emphasis on the saving grace of the sacrament when it is received with faith as the only truly Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament, and that concerning which we may be certain.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49147000348888988272009-09-10T00:57:26.168-04:002009-09-10T00:57:26.168-04:00I don't know that all of the TAC has failed to...I don't know that <i>all</i> of the TAC has failed to practice Anglicanism, because I would have to know what <i>all</i> of them have been doing. And, I still retain a very high regard for Bishop Rocco Florenza. But, it seems clear that a good number of the TAC clergy, including bishops, fail to appreciate Anglicanism, and have swallowed the propaganda of Anglicanism's detractors, hook, line and sinker. <br /><br />It is fair to criticize Rome to the point where we bring the truth into focus; and, frankly, only that far. They are not infallible on their own, because they are not the whole Catholic Church. They ought to stop saying to other members, "we have no need of thee...thou art not of the body" (and, Anglo-Papalists need to stop saying, "Because we are not Roman, we are not of the Body"). Their doctrines still obscure the good simplicity of the Gospel, and sometimes seem very much to contradict it. In terms of polity, they enforce self-destructive rules that Anglicans ought not to burden themselves with. In terms of discipline, their failure amounts to a horrifying scandal.<br /><br />The Anglo-Papalists, including those trying to lead the TAC into the Roman Communion, seem to me like a fellow who is in love with an odious, ugly woman with a social disease. We ask ourselves, what does he see in her? When Rome has demonstrated that new policies of internal discipline have cleaned up the homosexual clergy problem, and the pederast scandal, and is willing to come to a table to discuss old theological debates, she may seem a lot more attractive. But, time is required on all these points.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82869327415055900262009-09-09T22:32:37.198-04:002009-09-09T22:32:37.198-04:00There will always be people who feel a need to bec...There will always be people who feel a need to become Roman Catholics. It would take a long article to list all the reasons, theological, emotional or just personal (like a desire to attend church with one's grand-children). I doubt there is much we can do about this; it's hard to convince someone not to run away from home or get into a bad marriage.<br /><br />But much harm has been done by a certain type of Anglo-catholic who tries to make his church look as Roman as possible, either pre- or post-Vatican II. We have fostered the impression of being "Catholic-lite," Catholics who smile on artificial birth-control, who don't charge money for annulments, where priests can get married.<br /><br />I have no hesitancy in stating frequently that the classical Anglicanism of the 1549--1928 Common Prayer Tradition, of the Articles and the Homilies, the religion of Jewell, Whitgift and Hooker, is the MOST faithful to Holy Scripture and the ecumenical consensus of the first 1500 years of the Christian era. I intensely resent the repeated allegation that the authors of the 39 Articles were closet heretics, especially when those 16th century Anglican worthies affirmed the full Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the anicent councils. It is so easy for arm-chair theologians and internet warriors to hurl anathems at men who experienced exile, persecution and sometimes the stake for a Biblical and thoroughly Patristic faith.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29576239202009219072009-09-09T21:44:18.467-04:002009-09-09T21:44:18.467-04:00I went back to read the post again (yes, I do thin...I went back to read the post again (yes, I do think it is that good) and was reminded of a quote which I only vaguely remember about Christianity not being tried. In this case, the ACA synod, I think it can be affirmed that these folk have never actually tried Anglicanism. They, as many others of their ilk, have been doing something else entirely and only calling it Anglicanism. It is what they have substituted for the faith and practice, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Anglicanism as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, that has failed. But there is no way that THAT is Anglicanism.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44895149689693723662009-09-09T21:35:49.000-04:002009-09-09T21:35:49.000-04:00When Anglo-Papalists complain about the Thirty Nin...When Anglo-Papalists complain about the Thirty Nine Articles, I always wonder if they know that a book by Fra Francisco de Santa Clara (born Christopher Davenport) in which he affirmed that the Articles were completely in accord with the decrees of the Council of Trent received the approval of the Vatican. This was long before Newman and Tract 90. <br /><br />And I thought they had such high respect for the pronouncements of the Roman See. <br /><br />As for receiving communion in the Roman Church, I and a fair number of other Anglicans I know have done so on occasion. In my case it was at a Roman monastery where I was told that the monks would be very offended if I did not receive communion with them. They stressed that we both understood and believed the Creeds with the same faith. So there are Romans out there who don't accept the teaching of PB Catholic's priest friend. And, yes, Benedict XVI would probably be very upset at what they had done, but considering some of the actions of John Paul II, a little less than quite a few Romans are upset about some if not many of the things which he did - and not with Christians either.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40578419721717893302009-09-09T20:34:34.834-04:002009-09-09T20:34:34.834-04:00I would agree with Fr. Hart about the 39 Articles....I would agree with Fr. Hart about the 39 Articles. They are actually a good statement of faith and doctrine, and Bicknell's approach is good. I would say the problem with Anglicans today (and this includes the Continuum) is largely that they can state what they are <i>against</i> but they cannot articulate what they are <i>for</i>.<br /><br />To me this is how the Articles can be used: to be a positive statement of what we believe. Rather than pretend they don't exist, or attack them on some grounds as being "too Protestant", serves no useful purpose. If one thinks the doctrine expressed in the Articles cannot be reconciled with modern Anglicans, why not use them as a base for a modern statement of faith, and actually teach people a theological understanding of what they believe? But I would say the Articles are still good for us, even now.Willhttp://prydain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-74047570659912092032009-09-09T19:56:01.649-04:002009-09-09T19:56:01.649-04:00A good friend of mine, who happens to be a Roman C...A good friend of mine, who happens to be a Roman Catholic priest, once explained to me that it is not snobbery by which non-RCs are not permitted to receive the Eucharist in the RCC, even though they are baptized Christians and confirmed by a bishop, such as Anglicans as myself.<br /><br />The reason is that in the Church of Rome, as he explained it, when you receive the Eucharist it is more than just receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as we Anglicans believe. As he explained it to me, in the Church of Rome, receiving the Eucharist has another meaning attached. By receiving the Eucharist in the RCC you are affirming that you embrace all of the teachings of the RCC.<br /><br />When hearing it explained that way, I wouldn't want to receive their communion. I have attended their classes on their Cathechism, and I cannot in good conscience embrace all of their teachings.<br /><br />I am not attacking the RCC at all. I do embrace much of what they teach, but I definately do not embrace all of it.<br /><br />Yet, I still have fellowship and prayer with them. I play the organ for their Saturday evening Mass, and pray with them. I do feel totally "one with them in Christ". Many RC friends join together to sing in the choir in our Anglican parish for Evensong. They feel that they are "one in Christ" with us too.<br /><br />The Eucharist is not the only sign of Christian unity. It is only one sign of it. Prayers, singing, baptism, Bible Study, and too many more reasons to name exist to show that we are one in Christ.<br /><br />I still think that Christ was not concerned with heirarch and bishops when He prayed that we should be one. Personally, I think Christ would find the hierarchies/governmental structures of all churches to be at odds with the loving shepherds that He intended the bishops to be.<br /><br />We have turned the loving shepherds that Christ wanted into "bean counters" and administrators in too many cases. The smallness of the continuum allows are bishops to at least be somewhat closer to being shepherds than other churches.<br /><br />BCP CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7683134931566106162009-09-09T15:40:57.579-04:002009-09-09T15:40:57.579-04:00It seems to me that the comments on this post have...It seems to me that the comments on this post have wandered all over the place without focusing on those who, while calling themselves Anglicans and having accepted Anglican ordination, absolutely refuse to stop bad mouthing the relevant prayer books and the rest of the classical Anglican formularies. These are the bishops and priests whose clothes, churches and liturgies make them look and sound more like Romans and papists than English churchmen and churches ever did before the sixteenth century and the Reformation.<br /><br />To me the only solution to this problem is to ask each and every cleric whether they intend to be and appear to be Anglican rather than a Romanist of any stripe. My admittedly fundamentalist attitude may be the result of my time in the military where we all knew that to wear the uniform of another country opened you to charges which could result in your death by firing squad. On the other hand it may be that I find most of the specifically Roman stuff ugly and . . . . worse!<br /><br />I knew the Roman Church only too well long before I had any idea that the Book of Common Prayer and Anglicanism existed. My opinion of it then was not high and has not improved any since. I knew many fine, moral folk who were Romans, but there were those other . . . things which I simply don't want to discuss and which will not be solved in the Roman Church until they completely abandon what St Paul as called "the doctrine of devils" and return to the practice of the earliest Church.<br /><br />I think that folks who want to be papists should cross the Tiber as quickly as possible and never look back. I am tired of those who have done so spending time crying in the back pews of classical Anglicanism as Newman was said to have done.<br /><br />We are never going to be able to face our own evangelical challenge until we have shed those who are sue that they would be much happier elsewhere. We need priests and bishops who, having put their hand to the plow, will look at the furrow in front of them instead of letting their eyes stray to the next field. <br /><br />I particularly commend Father Hart keeping to his argument and the comments of R C Cola, High Churchman, BCP Catholic and Father Wells.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54896296749758394302009-09-09T13:29:48.013-04:002009-09-09T13:29:48.013-04:00And again, to repeat Fr. Hart's admonition, th...And again, to repeat Fr. Hart's admonition, this thread has little to do with the desirability of unity among Christians. No one can rationally defend the current state of affairs as right in God's sight. <br /><br />We are however, talking about what we bring to the table, about the understanding of the one Faith which we have inherited as Anglicans and the degree to which our historic insights are essential to a balanced theology in a putative reunited church. I can't be as convinced as Fr. Hart that our way is necessarily so far superior to other understandings. I believe that we, like Rome, and like the East, and, yes, like Protestants-commonly-so-called, still have a great deal to learn, and misconceptions to be cleared up. But we also have a great deal to teach that seems to have been forgotten by other groupings of Christians. To jettison our Anglican heritage, the writings of Hooker and others, and take on the emphasis of another church in its totality is not only to deprive ourselves of much of value, but to cheat other Christians of what we have that they need.<br /><br />We, and all the others, do need to learn and to change, but our need to preserve and to teach is just as strong. I'll be bold enough to say that Rome needs us and our heritage at least as much as we need them.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21397355777534461042009-09-09T13:17:32.560-04:002009-09-09T13:17:32.560-04:00OK, but to assume that to be "one" impli...OK, but to assume that to be "one" implies that one can be even slightly content with the existence of a whole raft of groups who are not in communion with each other is nothing short of ridiculous. You are not one in any visible sense with people on the other side of such a formidable barrier. In such a case there is real and palpable division. You are correct that He was not thinking of organizational structures, but He was thinking of a oneness of heart and mind such that separate altars would be unthinkable. Nothing short of that fits with any of the rest of what He taught. We do not have that kind of unity, and thus fall short of His expectations. <br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32808322078220465992009-09-09T12:27:40.250-04:002009-09-09T12:27:40.250-04:00When Jesus prayed that they may all be one, I thin...When Jesus prayed that they may all be one, I think he meant one in the essentials of faith and belief.<br /><br />I really don't Christ is concerned about hierarchy and bishops in a one church worldwide system.<br /><br />I think to assume that Jesus meant that there must be only one church, under a worldwide dictatorship, is a very wrong assumption.<br /><br />BCP CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2889761123202968092009-09-09T11:14:40.885-04:002009-09-09T11:14:40.885-04:00I can think of no body of Christian men that has b...I can think of no body of Christian men that has been pure of bad ideas, if only because records everywhere show internal conflict and debate. What matters is the conciliar result. The formularies of Anglicanism have been so perfectly balanced, and carefully worded, that I most certainly do see them as teaching the most pure and accurate Catholic doctrine that best fits the requirements of Universal Consensus and Antiquity. This includes the 39 Articles.<br /><br />The problem is not that Anglicans in the Continuum are blindly following those few Reformers; the problem is that they are almost completely ignorant of what they really taught, and why their teaching is more in line with the Fathers of the Church than what Rome taught then, and what Rome teaches now. Until an appreciation for the English Reformation is restored, with the aid of writers like E.J. Bicknell, it is counter productive to look for heresy in them. <br /><br />Furthermore, heretics by what standard? The standard of Universal Consensus and Antiquity, or the standard of Medieval or modern Rome? For example, Cranmer and Hooker's refusal to identify the point in the service at which the elements are consecrated, and their refusal to say how they are consecrated (i.e. the spiritual mechanics, so to speak, of what exactly happens and when), was heresy by the standard of Trent. But, that is because what Trent meant by "transubstantiation" was nothing more than a human speculation. And so on and so forth.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33073746075976448902009-09-09T08:45:21.156-04:002009-09-09T08:45:21.156-04:00I was struggling to find ways to say fundamentally...I was struggling to find ways to say fundamentally what Fr. Kirby has said better than I could. While I am in substantial agreement with most of what Fr. Hart says on these matters, I'm uncomfortable in couching description of our heritage in terms that sound as though I am being competitive with other Catholic traditions, or as though I believe myself and my tradition to be absolutely pure in teaching. Frankly, I know that latter not to be the case. One opinion that humility requires me to hold (though, alas, all too loosely most of the time) is that I myself, personally, though unaware, hold firmly to notions that should be termed heretical. I do not have it all right, never have, and never will, this side of the grave. I'm always in need of learning, always in need of correction, and so is my own little branch of Christendom -- and this is true for every other part of Christ's Church.<br /><br />I'm not an RC, and cannot see how I could be one, but they are indeed my brethren, and it is not impossible that there are truths to be found there that I've missed. The Roman<br />Church is, to my mind, at least as much and probably more a teacher as an antagonist. Benedict, without actually saying so, has demonstrated that he has found correctives among us for his teaching, and that is as it should be.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57743967867517398072009-09-09T08:40:40.605-04:002009-09-09T08:40:40.605-04:00I totally agree with Fr Hart and especially with h...I totally agree with Fr Hart and especially with his last post. While the TAC's Roman project may be well intended<br />(that is not for me to judge) it has been demonstrably divisive. It has driven a wedge between the TAC and the other portions of the Continuum. It has also been the occasion of much turmoil within the TAC itself. I count at least 11 parishes of the ACA which have jumped ship since this project has been in the works. This divisiveness makes the unity rhetoric seem rather hollow and the appeal to John 17 quite disingenuous.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12513293760489736582009-09-09T08:27:42.439-04:002009-09-09T08:27:42.439-04:00Fr. Kirby hits it on the head! The 39 Articles wer...Fr. Kirby hits it on the head! The 39 Articles were written at a time when Anglican Catholicism was under significant threat. While the Articles can be interpreted in a Catholic light, as Fr. Kirby notes, the association with heretical protestant reformers is there, and the Continuum has little to gain by highlighting this somewhat anachronistic and non-binding formulae.<br /><br />The plethora of acronymns and episcopal hierachies that consitute the Continuum need to reduce division if the Continuum is to be credible. The ending of divisions and schisms would give the Continuum credibility. How can we talk of swimming the Tiber or reconciliation with the East when we cannot reconcile with each other.<br /><br />It may be that the continuing expression of English Catholicism which is the Continuum will be better served when those who doubt the validity of Anglican Catholicism cross the Tiber to the Roman Church.Deacon Down Underhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14903366446394957630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51815883803077462802009-09-09T07:47:51.631-04:002009-09-09T07:47:51.631-04:00Wow, Fr Kirby! You've said it all. I can go ba...Wow, Fr Kirby! You've said it all. I can go back into my hole for a while.Sandra McCollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452475999110574881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10738553927598995632009-09-09T07:14:12.877-04:002009-09-09T07:14:12.877-04:00Father Hart,
I agree with your comment about uni...Father Hart, <br /><br />I agree with your comment about unity within the Continuum. I am a member of a church which was once part of APCK. Returning from a weeks vacation one year, I discovered that the parish had moved to the ACA. I still don't fully understand the reasons why this was done. The result was not, however, unity. <br />Shortly after this change, TAC/ACA made their approach to Rome. Sunday attendance was on a upward swing prior to the switch to the ACA and has been steadily downward since. <br />The way that information regarding the approach has been presented, or "leaked", has not been reassuring.acalayreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531252940778447585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50068231767967623712009-09-09T06:02:22.393-04:002009-09-09T06:02:22.393-04:00While I agree that certain forms of Anglo-Papalism...While I agree that certain forms of Anglo-Papalism are disloyal and incoherent, I do not agree this is universally the case, as I have argued before in essays included in my Apologetics link to which reference has already been made.<br /><br />Also, one will find in the same resources my opinion repeatedly made reasonably clear that a number of English Reformers were in fact materially heretical in certain areas, but that their heterodoxies were not, by the grace of God and the influence of the more orthodox, imposed definitively upon our formularies. So, I am not enamoured of the position that asks me to access Holy Tradition via the English Reformers unless the Tradition is used to filter them (rather than the other way around) and we include under the title English Reformer all the High Churchmen (and sympathetic monarchs) from Elizabethan times till the 1662 Revision of the BCP.<br /><br />Two more points:<br /><br />1. The question of whose Catholicism is better or more pure is, in my opinion, of little worth. Here is a place where comparisons are truly odious. After all, Catholicism is as Catholicism does. While our patrimony has much of genuine Catholicity and spiritual value, are we willing to pronounce that, here and now, our jurisdictions manifest Christianity in a way undeniably superior to and healthier than the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic jurisdictions? And if we treat these other jurisdictions as Catholic sister churches for our part, as we have claimed, we cannot (coherently) simultaneously accuse them of definitive heresy, whatever weaknesses or deficiencies in teaching or practice we may perceive in them. And have we none of our own? So, it comes down to the duty of uncovering and unfolding an underlying dogmatic unity and resolving differences patiently and humbly.<br /><br />2. The 39 Articles, though intrinsically defensible and within the realms of orthodoxy if interpreted on Anglican <br />Catholic principles, did in fact include among their authors those of heretical opinions and bear the marks of their ambiguous provenance. We are under no obligation and do not need to idealise either them or their authors. And they are not, in fact, among the binding formularies of the ACC, not being mentioned at all in the Affirmation, Constitution or Canons.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77094647104246710552009-09-09T01:39:58.233-04:002009-09-09T01:39:58.233-04:00Having recently swam this way across the Tiber, I ...Having recently swam <i>this</i> way across the Tiber, I cannot imagine for the life of me why any Anglo-Catholic priest would prefer the Novus Ordo Missae over the BCP.<br /><br />It is insipid and vacuous. The ICEL English used is banal at best; it has very meaningful mistranslations in it, which caused me to doubt the orthodoxy of those who put it in place.<br /><br />I know that some Anglicans like the NOM because it is a departure from the historical Missale Romanum, and thus <i>seems</i> a victory against the Catholic Reformation--as if Rome admitted it was worshiping wrongly all along. But it is no victory at all. I fail to be enthusiastic about any and all departures from historic liturgical texts, especially the Tridentine Missal which can very easily trace its way from edition to edition back to the Gregorian Sacramentary. The NOM is based on now out-dated research and the false sense of antiquarianism. The NOM is an anachronism because it claims to be modern, updated and "relevant" while at the same time being a "return" to the worship of the primitive Church. Horse manure. <br /><br />A non-historic liturgy is no real liturgy at all. And the victory of a non-historic liturgy is cause for lamentation, not sneering delight.<br /><br />Being one of the few non-bitter ex-Romans that I know of, I am more sympathetic toward Anglicans who wish to cross the Tiber and enter the RCC than many other Anglicans are. I know the draw that Rome can have on one's heart--especially with a Pope like Benedict XVI. It's hard not to be drawn toward Rome. And the problems I have with Rome, are not the historic problems that Anglicans have. <br /><br />My beef with Rome is strictly disciplinary and ecclesiastical. Basically, the RC bishops need to be poisoned Borgia-style and an entire new level of "middle management" be put into place. The sexual scandals were systematized by bishops like Rembert Weakland, and the current crop is simply perpetuating a culture of sodomy in seminaries while sweeping the human detritus (a.k.a. victims) under the rug. Let's put it this way, a priest at my seminary had a protege-sodomite studying at another seminary. The priest was assigned as the Vatican inspector to that seminary and naturally gave it a bill of good health. So the Vatican, through the USCCB, assigned the very priests that they needed to root out to do the rooting out. All that happened was men that made the mistake of speaking out to the inspectors about problems ended up getting run out on a rail.<br /><br />And they want to join this? Ay ay ay!!!RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25409313091121543342009-09-08T23:19:38.761-04:002009-09-08T23:19:38.761-04:00Obviously, my fellow bloggers may demonstrate disa...Obviously, my fellow bloggers may demonstrate disagreement of the "robust if polite" kind, because we are not obligated to be in perfect agreement. We may serve the Continuing churches better by disagreeing with charity, because certain things need to be discussed. <br /><br />So, I will state my truest opinion. If we are going to have meaningful unity it must start in a realistic context, and have a realistic goal. We cannot bring Rome and Constantinople together, but we can bring the Continuum into a state of unity. But, how can we bring the Anglican Continuum into unity (beyond the ACC/APCK/UECNA concordat) if one of the larger jurisdictions is looking away from Anglicanism altogether? <br /><br />Others are free to jump in and tell me why I am wrong, and we can discuss it. But, all I see coming from this new brand of Anglo-Papalism are these things:<br /><br />1) The above mentioned inferiority complex<br />2) The above mentioned combination of ignorance and misinformation about what Anglicanism actually is, and about its teaching<br />3) A hole through which many individuals are lost to us, and for no good reason.<br /><br />My conclusion, with which anyone is free to debate, is that the TAC/Rome issue is hurting the Continuum, and harming individuals who need the truth that our patrimony gives. The Anglican Continuum is losing people, and those distinctive features by which we may be a blessing to the larger Catholic Church, are in danger of being forgotten. <br /><br />I do urge unity, workable and practical Anglican unity. I see no other way to even help forward the cause of any larger kind.<br /><br />I am willing to be told if or why I am wrong.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14164530818831712832009-09-08T22:08:16.705-04:002009-09-08T22:08:16.705-04:00"Our separate existence is an objective wrong..."Our separate existence is an objective wrong."<br /><br />This is neither self-evident or axiomatic. I reject this assertion altogether. It seems oblivious to Paul's well-known analogy of the Body and its many different parts with different functions. We commonly apply this to the various human members of the Church. But it is with equal propriety applied to different religious orders. Is it "objectively wrong" for Jesuits to be drastically different from Carthusians, or Dominicans from Paulists? The original reasons for separation in many cases were truly sinful. But it does not necessarily follow that the resulting situation is "objectively wrong." If it were, we could not account for God's ample blessings on the rich variety of "all who profess and call themselves Christians."<br /><br />The notion that Christian unity must be expressed in one monolithic organization is not Biblical, feasible, or even spiritually wholesome. <br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com