An Anglican Crossword Cleric

I ran across this lovely elegy through TitusOneNine. It’s full of good thoughts about the eucatastrophe of eternal life with God.

Meanwhile the Anglicans, among whom this bishop is counted, are changing their baptismal formula because it has too much obsolete sin and Christ stuff in it; so I thought I’d post something about the less embarrassingly embarrassed-by-Christ side of things.

Seriously, Anglican/Episcopal folks, the Anglican Ordinariate is open to you, so why not come over and be an Anglican Use Catholic? Or at least go join one of the dissident Anglican groups that’s Christian and proud of it?



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “An Anglican Crossword Cleric

  1. I know. The Anglican and Episcopal Churches have become surprisingly liberal. I wonder if there’s any way for certain ones to become more conservative without joining the Catholic Church.

  2. Blake

    The language you refer to is an attempt at “translating,” not replacing the baptismal language. Secondly, the liturgical language has not been unchanged in 400 years as most article claim but has been altered 3 times in 30 years.

    While translation is a poor replacement for Catechesis, and liturgical change ought to be done with more care, gossip and backbiting are contrary to the purposes of our practices brother.

    I cannot speak generally, but in particular, I see no reason to join the Anglican Ordinariate because (and here I address medievalotaku too) both Catholics and Anglicans have been infected by classical Liberalism, Catholics more so of the “conservative” flavor and Anglicans more so of the “liberal” flavor. Both are two sides of the same coin – American before part of the One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church. I’m not well read on the papal bull of Absolutely Null & Utterly Void of 1892 but I’m aware that the arguments are strawmen based mostly on misapprehension or strawmen of Anglican apostolicity. Bracketing that though (and I realize that is a hard statement to consider), if one could assume from an Anglican standpoint that both churches have Christ as the Head of the Church, then the Holiness of the Church does not stand on its members doing silly things, but on Christ himself, lest we become Pelagians. Thus, such an ecclesiology allows its members to suffer such silly liturgical changes (if the allegations were actually true) because The Church proper does not rest on humans, but on The Lord. What might follow from such a problem is a question of the members participating more in the work of God through better disciplines, Catechesis, etc., but not departure from one’s church. For where could one stand to deny authority in such a way to leave a church? And this is where Classical Liberalism rears its head, for to submit (as the baptismal covenant says) to the Lord is to submit to The Church. To deny it because of something its members did means that the individual is the ultimate authority. If an Anglican left and joined the Romans their real authority lies in themselves, not in a church. This is the modern curse: the rejection authority is actually the myth of the self-authorized self-made man. It is Pride, it is the sin of the Morning Star.

    Anyway I’m ranting so I should go to bed. I have enjoyed reading your blog so far though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.