A longish, mixed-up miscellany, not thought through and sure to piss-off all sorts. Are any of the following remarks true? Are they even accurate? Dunno.
From The Old Jamestown Church:
His remark about ACNA was interesting. He noted that there is a huge segment of people in that province who, if it had not been for the consecration of Vicky Gene Robinison, would have happily remained Episcopalians. Their move out of TEc to ACNA, in his estimation, wasn't so much evidence of their being traditional Anglicans as it was of their being mere anti-gay bigots (his words). He went on to say that these people really have no clue as to what it means to be a traditional Anglican, or as to just what had happened to the Church of England and her spawn throughout the globe long, long before Robinson's consecration.
This is my (unfortunate) riposte to so many of the many rainbow flavours of "Anglicanism" out there: not very Anglican. If one wanted to be a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic, then go for it. But ... not ... Anglicanism.
From The Old Jamestown Church:
As for me, I seek full incorporation into that "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" in which we say we believe when we recite the Creed, and I can only do so as an *English* Catholic, not a Roman one or an Orthodox one. I intend to follow the Lord's will, *whatever that may be* ... my Anglicanism can only be that of a Catholic kind, in keeping with the stated sentiments of Cranmerians and Carolines and Tractarians, however much they have missed the mark in that regard.
English Catholicism ... precisely nowhere. Which is why my only passport is stamped 'Erewhon'.
From Touchstone:
Latitudinarian Conservatives ... cannot effectively resist the liberalization of their Churches. This is especially true because most liberals ... have now mastered the language of evangelicalism, and speak easily of “mission” and “spirituality” and “evangelism.” In battle Latcons have no fixed home to defend, and in fact are sometimes not even sure there is an enemy to fight.
Because their faith is mainly instinctive and emotional, they are easily fooled by those whose instincts and emotions seem the same. Liberalism almost always makes a plausible case for laudable ends—equality or reconciliation or unity or mission. Its errors lie in the way it defines these words and in the way it defends them, which is to say in its doctrine. Thus Latcons, with their unsettled attitude to dogma and tradition, cannot easily see the errors, and therefore tend to accept the sentiment.
Yeah, liberals seem harmless enough: until they come out swinging. Duuuuuuuuuuck!
Old Enoch had it right, as there is but one basic choice: (Catholic) Christianity or Not (Catholic) Christianity. You may take your pick. Or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment