We deny to claim "any Superiority to ourself
to defyne, decyde, or determyn any Article or Poynt
of the Christian Fayth and Relligion,
or to chang any Ancient Ceremony of the Church
from the Forme before received and observed
by the Catholick and Apostolick Church."

Norman Simplicity

Norman Simplicity
Click image for original | © Vitrearum (Allan Barton)

Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Both 'comprehension' and Anglican 'comprehensiveness' are long gone. Too bad. From my perspective, the middle was held by Catholicism, not Latitudinarianism. It was the super-evangelicals and the super-liberals that represented the fringes, and it was these two groups who eventually formed the devilish pact to wreck it all with women's ordination. But since politics is a bitch, it wasn't long before the Low Churchers found themselves being shown the door.

Now, thanks to their combined efforts, *Teh Episcopal Church* is high ritualist and completely Pelagian: the rite affirms us. It is now the indisputable home of this:

All praise and glory be unto us!

Consequently, I really shouldn't bother myself with the Evangelicals. While, on second thought, I could probably live with 1662 completely unrecast, what could be the point of fetishizing just one particular expression? If the goal is the practice of the Primitive Church, then surely 1662 represents a truly noble effort that now has been superseded by history and the growth of thought and knowledge. Nevertheless, I would be willing to chuck it all and start from there if something significant thence could really be achieved.

But that is utterly doubtful. These people think 1928 is heretical. While pointed, their readings are really quite perverse. And yet, I even embrace some of these perversities by highlighting the fact that the target they seek is actually a liberal or Latitudinarian view of eucharistic sacrifice. It is not Catholic but fully Pelagian and 'methetic'.

And so, qua sacrament, I can fully agree that it should adhere to the "four" points found in Articles XXV and XXVIII; namely, that the Sacrament is

  1. an Effectual Sign (with backwards reference only);
  2. a Divine Act (i.e., it is primarily a one-way street);
  3. an Effective Proclamation (in the present, to man); and
  4. requiring a Worthy Reception.

And while God needs neither our worship nor our gifts, we do so for the greatness of His nature and His goodness to us. And it is there that the other side of the street -- the one that they will never see -- lies.

No comments:

Post a Comment