Search

ANGLICAN BLOGS AND WEB SITES

1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

A Living Text

Akenside Press

ἀναστόμωσις

Anglican Audio

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Catholic Liturgy and Theology

Anglican Church in America

Anglican Churches of America

Anglican Church Planting

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Internet Church

Anglican Mainstream

Anglican Mom

Anglican Music

An Anglican Priest

Anglican.net

Anglican Province of America

Anglican Province of Christ the King

Anglican Rose

Anglican Way Magazine

The Anglophilic Anglican

A BCP Anglican

Apologia Anglicana

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Cathedral Close

Chinese Orthodoxy

The Church Calendar

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

CommonPrayer.org

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

Continuing Forward: Joint Anglican Synod

The Curate's Corner

The Cure of Souls

Diocese of the Holy Cross

Drew's Views

Earth and Altar: Catholic Ressourcement for Anglicans

The Evangelical Ascetic

Faith and Gender: Five Aspects

Father Calvin Robinson

Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen

Forward in Faith North America

Francis J. Hall's Theological Outlines

Free Range Anglican

Full Homely Divinity

Gavin Ashenden

The Homely Hours

International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Martin Thornton

New Goliards

New Scriptorium (Anglican Articles and Books Online)

The North American Anglican

O cuniculi! Ubi lexicon Latinum posui?

The Ohio Anglican Blog

The Old High Churchman

Orthodox Anglican Church - North America

Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury

Ritual Notes

Pusey House

Prydain

radix occasum

Rebel Priest (Jules Gomes)

Reformed Episcopal Church

Ritual Notes

River Thames Beach Party

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

The Southern High Churchman

Texanglican

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online

We See Through A Mirror Darkly

When I Consider How My Light is Spent: The Crier in the Digital Wilderness Calls for a Second Catholic Revival

HUMOR 

The Babylon Bee

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire

"WORSHIP WARS"

Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People

RESISTING LEFTIST ANTICHRISTIANITY

Black-Robed Regiment

Cardinal Charles Chaput Reviews "For Greater Glory" (Cristero War)

Cristero War

Benedict Option

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?

The Once and Future Christendom

Trouble

RESISTING ISLAMIC ANTICHRISTIANITY

Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

Bernard of Clairvaux and the Knights Templar

Gates of Nineveh

Gates of Vienna

Jihad Watch

Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Restore Nineveh Now - Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI)

The Once and Future Christendom

Trouble

OTHER SITES AND BLOGS, MANLY, POLITICAL AND WHATNOT

Abbeville Institute Blog

Art of the Rifle

The Art of Manliness

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Church For Men

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, (Leon Podles' online book)

Craft Beer

Eclectic Orthodoxy

First Things

The Imaginative Conservative

Katehon

Men of the West

Monomakhos (Eastern Orthodox; Paleocon)

The Once and Future Christendom

The Orthosphere

Paterfamilias Daily

The Midland Agrarian

Those Catholic Men

Tim Holcombe: Anti-State; Pro-Kingdom

Touchstone

Pint, Pipe and Cross Club

The Pipe Smoker

The Salisbury Review

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Throne and Altar

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)

Turnabout

What's Wrong With The World: Dispatches From The 10th Crusade

CHRISTIAN MUSIC FOR CHRISTIAN MEN

Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)

 Jerycho

WOMEN'S ORDINATION

A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son  (Yes, this is about women's ordination.)

Essays on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood from the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth

Faith and Gender: Five Aspects of Man, Fr. William Mouser

"Fasten Your Seatbelts: Can a Woman Celebrate Holy Communion as a Priest? (Video), Fr. William Mouser

Father is Head at the Table: Male Eucharistic Headship and Primary Spiritual Leadership, Ray Sutton

FIFNA Bishops Stand Firm Against Ordination of Women

God, Gender and the Pastoral Office, S.M. Hutchens

God, Sex and Gender, Gavin Ashenden

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

How Has Modernity Shifted the Women's Ordination Debate? , Alistair Roberts

Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination, Robert Yarbrough (Book Review, contra Will Witt)

Icons of Christ: Plausibility Structures, Matthew Colvin (Book Review, contra Will Witt)

Imago Dei, Persona Christi, Alexander Wilgus

Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes, Peter J. Leithart

Ordaining Women as Deacons: A Reappraisal of the Anglican Mission in America's Policy, John Rodgers

Ordination and Embodiment, Mark Perkins (contra Will Witt)

Ordinatio femina delenda est. Why Women’s Ordination is the Canary in the Coal Mine, Richard Reeb III

Priestesses in Plano, Robert Hart

Priestesses in the Church?, C.S. Lewis

Priesthood and Masculinity, Stephen DeYoung

Reasons for Questioning Women’s Ordination in the Light of Scripture, Rodney Whitacre

Sacramental Representation and the Created Order, Blake Johnson

Ten Objections to Women Priests, Alice Linsley

The Short Answer, S.M. Hutchens

William Witt's Articles on Women's Ordination (Old Jamestown Church archive)

Women in Holy Orders: A Response, Anglican Diocese of the Living Word

Women Priests?, Eric Mascall

Women Priests: History & Theology, Patrick Reardon

Powered by Squarespace
Recent Entries
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.

      

 

 

 

 

 

                  Theme Music:  Healey Willan - Missa brevis No. 2 in F Minor

Entries in Old Catholics (7)

Thursday
Dec122024

Thomas Howard: Recognizing The Church

Linking this excellent piece penned by the late Thomas Howard for Touchstone Magazine.  Though Howard writes as a convert to Roman Catholicism, he nowhere in the article hard sells Roman doctrine, and the reasons he gives for his conversion appeal to Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic alike.  Some salient quotations:

_____________________________________________________

I was brought up in an Evangelical household. To say this is to say something good.

My father was a layman, not a preacher; but he was a devoted and assiduous daily student of the Bible. He and my mother exist to this day in my imagination as the very icons of the godly man and woman. It was a wonderful thing—that sage, earnest, transparent, Bible-centered faith. I owe the fact that I am a believer today, and that my whole pilgrimage, steep and tortuous as it has been sometimes, has been towards the center, not away from it, to the faith and prayers and example of my father and mother. I believe that I and my five brothers and sisters, all of whom, now, in our sixties, are Christians who want to follow the Lord wholly, would all testify to this godly influence of our parents. The household was a household suffused with the Bible. We sang hymns—daily—hundreds of them over the years, so that probably all six of us know scores of hymns by heart. We had family prayers twice a day, after breakfast and after supper. Our parents prayed with us at our bedside, the last thing at night. We all went to Sunday school and church regularly. There is only one agenda in a fundamentalist Sunday school: the Bible. The Bible day in and day out, year in and year out. Flannelgraph lessons, sword drills, Scripture memory: Everything was focused directly on the Bible itself. I am grateful for every minute of this, now, 50 years later. Because of this, the whole of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is ringing in my ears all the time. Hundreds of verses, in the language of the King James Version, are there, intact, in my memory. I hope that, if my memory fails and I lose my wits in my old age, perhaps these verses, from so long ago, will remain there and bring me solace. . . .

But I speak as one whose pilgrimage has led him from the world of Protestant Evangelicalism to the Roman Catholic Church. One way or another, all of us whose nurture has been in one of the sectors of Protestantism where the Bible is honored, where the gospel is preached without dissimulation, and where Jesus Christ is worshipped as God and Savior—all of us desire to be faithful to the ancient faith that we profess, and to be found obedient to the will of God. Certainly such fidelity and obedience have motivated us so far, and we want to be able to give an accounting of ourselves when it comes to our turn at the Divine Tribunal, for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.

Why then, would anyone want to leave such a world? Was not that a rendering of the ancient faith almost without equal? Surely to leave it would be to go from great plenty out to famine and penury?. . . .

During my 23 years as an Anglican, I discovered, and gradually became at home in, the world of liturgy, and of sacrament, and of the church year. But also as I read in theology and church history and in the tradition of Christian spirituality, I found myself increasingly acutely conscious of a question: But what is the Church?

Every Sunday at the Anglican liturgy I found myself repeating, “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” These are words from an era that all of us—Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and unaffiliated—must take seriously, since all of us, whether we are pleased to admit it or not, are the direct beneficiaries of the work of the men who hammered out those words. You and I may think, in some of our less reflective moments, that all we need is the Bible and our own wits. Sola Scriptura. Just me and my Bible. But that is an impertinent notion. Every Christian in every assembly of believers in this world is incalculably in the debt of the men who succeeded the apostles. For they are the ones who, during those early centuries when the Church was moving from the morning of Pentecost out into the long haul of history, fought and thought and worked and wrote and died, so that “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” might indeed be handed on. Heresiarchs popped up out of the weeds left, right, and center, and all of them believed in the “verbal inspiration” of Scripture. It was the Church, in her bishops and councils, that preserved the faith from the errors of the heresiarchs and other zealots, and that shepherded the faithful along in the Way, as it was called.

You and I, insofar as we are familiar with modern Protestantism and, a fortiori, with Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism, are familiar with a state of affairs that would have been unimaginable to our Fathers in the faith in those early days. I am referring to the oddity that, even though we all say we believe in the final and fixed truth of divine revelation, we are nevertheless all at odds when it comes to deciding just what that truth is. Oh, to be sure, we all agree on the so-called fundamentals of the gospel—but of course those fundamentals have been articulated and distilled for us by the Church that wrote the creeds. The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the modernists all toil away at the pages of the Bible, but you and I would say they are not getting the right things out of that Bible. Why do we say that? Because, whether we acknowledge it or not, our “orthodox” understanding of the Bible has been articulated for us by the Church. All sorts of notions, for example, have cropped up about the Trinity, about the mystery of Our Lord’s divine and human natures, and so forth. The reason you and I are not Nestorians or Eutychians or Apollinarians or Docetists or Arians or Montanists is that the Church guarded and interpreted and taught the Bible, and we, the faithful, have had a reliable and apostolic voice in the Church that says, “This is what Holy Scripture is to be understood as teaching, and that which you hear Eutychius or Sabellius teaching from the Bible is not to be believed.”

But I was speaking of the question that began to force its way into my mind during those years: What is the Church? What may have appeared as a digression just now, when I referred to the men who worked so hard to preserve the faith, and the bishops and councils who settled upon the right understanding of revelation, was not a digression at all. When I heard myself repeating the words from the Nicene Creed at the liturgy, “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” I was, of course, saying words that are not directly from any one text in the Bible and yet that have been spoken in all of Christendom for a millennium and a half now and in some sense constitute a plumbline for us. The Creed is not Scripture; that is true. But then all of us, whether we come from groups that repeat the creed or not, would agree, “Oh yes, indeed; that is the faith which we all profess.” Some would add, “But of course, we get it straight out of the Bible. We don’t need any creed.” The great difficulty here is that Eutychius and Sabellius and Arius got their notions straight out of the Bible as well. Who will arbitrate these things for us? Who will speak with authority to us faithful, all of us rushing about flapping the pages of our well-thumbed New Testaments, locked in shrill contests over the two natures of Christ, or baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or the mystery of predestination? This question formed itself in the following way for me, a twentieth-century Christian: Who will arbitrate for us between Luther and Calvin? Or between Luther and Zwingli, both appealing loudly to Scripture, and each with a view of the Lord’s Table that categorically excludes the other’s view? And who will arbitrate for us between John Wesley and George Whitefield—that is, between Arminius and Calvin? Or between J. N. Darby (he thought he had found the biblical pattern for Christian gathering, and the Plymouth Brethren to this day adhere to his teaching) and all the denominations? Or between the dispensationalists and the Calvinists on the question of eschatology?

A piquant version of this situation presented itself to us loosely affiliated Evangelicals, with all of our independent seminaries and Grace chapels and Moody churches, and so forth. When a crucial issue arises—say, what we should teach about sexuality—who will speak to us with a finally authoritative voice? The best we can do is to get Christianity Today to run a symposium, with one article by J. I. Packer plumping for traditional morality, and one article by one of our lesbian feminist Evangelicals (there are some) showing that we have all been wrong for the entire 3,500 years since Sinai, and that what the Bible really teaches is that indeed homosexuals may enjoy a fully expressed sexual life. The trouble here is that J. I. Packer has no more authority than our lesbian friend, so the message to the faithful is, “Take your pick.”

This is not, whatever else we wish to say about it, a picture of things that would be recognizable to the apostles, or to the generations that followed them. The faithful, in those early centuries, were certainly aware of a great babel of voices among the Christians, teaching this and teaching that, on every conceivable point of revelation. But the faithful were also aware that there was a body that could speak into the chaos, and declare, with serene and final authority, what the faith that had been taught by the apostles was. Clearly, we Evangelicals have been living in a scheme of things altogether unrecognizable to the apostles and the Fathers of the Church.

“I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” I found myself saying in the creed. What Church? What is the Church? What was the Church in the minds of the men who framed that creed? Clearly it was not the donnybrook that the world sees nowadays, with literally thousands of groups, big and small, all clamoring, and all claiming to be, in some sense, the Church.

As an Anglican I became aware that I, as an individual believer, stood in a very long and august lineage of the faithful, stretching back to the apostles and fathers. The picture had changed for me: It was no longer primarily me, my Bible, and Jesus (although heaven knows that is not altogether a bad picture: the only question is, is it the whole picture?). Looming for me, as an Anglican, was “the faith,” ancient, serene, undimmed, true. And that faith somehow could not be split apart from “the Church.” But then, what was the Church?

I realized that, one way or another, I had to come to terms with the Church in all of its antiquity, its authority, its unity, its liturgy, and its sacraments. Those five marks, or aspects, of the Church are matters that all of us, I think, would find to be eluding us in the free churches. I speak as a Roman Catholic, for that is where my own pilgrimage has brought me in my quest for this Church in all of its antiquity, authority, unity, liturgy, and sacraments.

First, the antiquity of the Church confronts me. As an Evangelical, I discovered while I was in college that it was possible to dismiss the entire Church as having gone off the rails by about a.d. 95. That is, we, with our open Bibles, knew better than old Ignatius or Polycarp or Clement, who had been taught by the apostles themselves—we knew better than they just what the Church is and what it should look like. Never mind that our worship services would have been unrecognizable to them, or that our church government would have been equally unrecognizable, or that the vocabulary in which we spoke of the Christian life would have been equally unrecognizable. We were right, and the Fathers were wrong. That settled the matter.

The trouble here was that what these wrong-headed men wrote—about God, about our Lord Jesus Christ, about his Church, about the Christian’s walk and warfare—was so titanic, and so rich, and so luminous, that their error seemed infinitely truer and more glorious than my truth. I gradually felt that it was I, not they, who was under surveillance. The “glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of martyrs, and the holy Church throughout all the world” (to quote the ancient hymn, the Te Deum) judge me, not I them. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Cyril, Basil, the Gregorys, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Benedict—it is under the gaze of this senate that I find myself standing. Alas. How tawdry, how otiose, how flimsy, how embarrassing, seem the arguments that I had been prepared, so gaily, to put forward against the crushing radiance of their confession. The Church is here, in all of its antiquity, judging me.

Second, the Church in its authority confronts me. That strange authority to bind and to loose that our Lord bestowed on his disciples has not evaporated from the Church—or so the Church has believed from the beginning. If you will read the story of those decades that followed Pentecost, and especially that followed upon the death of the apostles, you will discover that the unction to teach and to preside in the Church that passed from the apostles to the bishops was understood to be an apostolic unction. I, for example, could not start up out of the bulrushes and say, “Hi, everybody! The Lord has led me to be a bishop! I’m starting me a church over here.” The whole Christian community—bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laity—would have looked solemnly at me and gone about their business. The Holy Spirit, in those days, did not carry on private transactions with isolated souls, and then announce to the Church that so-and-so had been anointed for this or that ministry. The unction of the Holy Spirit, and the authority of the Church to ordain for ministry, were not two random enterprises. The Holy Spirit worked in, and through, the Church’s ministry and voice. To be sure, he could do what he wanted to do, as he had always done, being God. Under the Old Covenant, we could say that he worked in and through Israel; but of course you find these extra characters like Job and Jethro and the Magi, coming across the stage from outside the Covenant, yet nonetheless undeniably having been in touch with God. God can do what he wants, of course. . . .

Third, the Church in its unity confronts me. This is the most difficult and daunting matter. But one thing eventually became clear: My happy Evangelical view of the church’s unity as being nothing more than the worldwide clutter that we had under our general umbrella was, for good or ill, not what the ancient Church had understood by the word unity. As an Evangelical, I could pick which source of things appealed most to me: Dallas Seminary; Fuller Seminary; John Wimber; Azusa Street; the Peninsula Bible Church; Hudson Taylor; the deeper life as taught at Keswick; Virginia Mollenkott; John Stott; or Sam Shoemaker. And in one sense, variety is doubtless a sign of vigorous life in the Church. But in another sense, of course, it is a disaster. It is disastrous if I invest any of the above with the authority that belongs alone to the Church. But then who shall guide my choices?

Once again, we come back to the picture that we have in the ancient Church. Whatever varieties of expression there may have been—in Alexandria as over against Lyons or in Antioch as over against Rome—nevertheless, when it came to the faith itself, and also to order and discipline and piety in the Church, no one was left groping or mulling over the choices in the flea market. Where we Protestants were pleased to live with a muddle—even with stark contradiction (as in the case of Luther versus Zwingli, for example)—the Church of antiquity was united. No one needed to remain in doubt for long as to what the Christian Church might be, or where it might be found. The Montanists were certainly zealous and earnest, and had much to commend them; the difficulty, finally, was that they were not the Church. Likewise with the Donatists. God bless them for their fidelity and ardor and purity, but they were not the Church. As protracted and difficult as the Arian controversy was, no one needed to remain forever in doubt as to what the Church had settled upon: Athanasius was fighting for the apostolic faith, against heresy. It did not remain an open question forever. There was one Church and the Church was one. And this was a discernible, visible, embodied unity, not a loose aggregate of vaguely like-minded believers with their various task forces all across the globe. The bishop of Antioch was not analogous to the general secretary of the World Evangelical Fellowship or the head of the National Association of Evangelicals. He could speak with the full authority of the Church behind him; these latter gentlemen can only speak for their own organization. He was not even analogous to the stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church or the presiding bishop of the Episcopalians, neither of whom is understood by his clientele to be speaking in matters of doctrine and morality with an undoubted apostolic authority.

This line of thought could bring us quickly to the point at which various voices today might start bidding for our attention, each one of them with “Hey—ours is the apostolic voice—over here!” That is not my task here. I only would want to urge you to test your own understanding of the Church against the Church’s ancient understanding of itself as united, as one. What is that unity? It is a matter that has perhaps been answered too superficially and frivolously for the last two hundred years in American Protestantism. The Church in its unity is here, judging us. . . .

Fifth and finally, the sacraments of the Church confront me. The word sacrament is the Latin word for the Greek mysterion, mystery. Indeed, we are in the presence of mystery here, for the sacraments, like the Incarnation itself, constitute physical points at which the eternal touches time, or the unseen touches the seen, or grace touches nature. It is the Gnostics and Manichaeans who want a purely disembodied religion.

Judaism, and its fulfillment, Christianity, are heavy with matter. First, at creation itself, where solid matter was spoken into existence by the Word of God. Then redemption, beginning not with the wave of a spiritual wand, nor with mere edicts pronounced from the sky, but rather with skins and blood—the pelts of animals slaughtered by the Lord God to cover our guilty nakedness. Stone altars, blood, fat, scapegoats, incense, gold, acacia wood—the Old Covenant is heavily physical.

Then the New Covenant: We now escape into the purely spiritual and leave the physical behind, right? Wrong. First a pregnancy, then a birth. Obstetrics and gynecology, right at the center of redemption. Fasting in the wilderness, water to wine, a crown of thorns, splinters and nails and blood—our eternal salvation carried out in grotesquely physical terms. Then pure spirituality, right? Wrong. A corpse resuscitated. And not only that—a human body taken up into the midmost mysteries of the eternal Trinity. And Bread and Wine, Body and Blood, pledged and given to the Church, for as long as history lasts. Who has relegated this great gift to the margins of Christian worship and consciousness? By what warrant did men, 1,500 years after the Lord’s gift of his Body and Blood, decide that this was a mere detail, somewhat embarrassing, and certainly nothing central or crucial—a show-and-tell device at best? O tragedy! O sacrilege! What impoverishment for the faithful!

Saturday
Apr272024

Is Fr. Patrick J. Schlabs Taking a Shot at Fr. Calvin Robinson?

I was ordained a deacon with Fr. Schlabs back in 2014 when we were both in AMiA.  He would go on to ACNA and become the "Canon for Cultural Engagement" in  the ACNA's Diocese of South Carolina, and I would go on to serve as a healthcare chaplain and a priest in the Anglican Continuum.

I don't know quite what to make of Canon Schlabs' comment here, but on the face of it, it does appear that he's taking a shot at Fr. Calvin Robinson, who is a priest canonically resident in the Nordic Catholic Church, but whose DNA is Anglican of the Catholic variety.  And it must be noted that it was principals in the Anglican Diocese of South Carlolina, where Schlabs is canonically resident, who "cancelled" Fr. Robinson at the Mere Anglican Conference in 2024.  Those folks recieved a lot of deserved flak for their behavior towards Fr. Robinson, and that gives me reason to think that Fr. Schlabs is exhibiting some bad blood here.

But I could be wrong.  Maybe he'll chime in and explain.  If he does, I will delete this post.

More likely he won't, however.  And if he doesn't, well, all I can say is that his behavior is petty.

A fellow Continuing priest put it this way in response to this screen capture:  "
Imagine being a canon for cultural engagement and managing to insult that many cultures in one post".


Wednesday
Apr242024

Mere Priestesses

"Controversy surrounds the disinvitation of Fr. Calvin Robinson from the closing panel of the Mere Anglicanism conference held in Charleston, South Carolina, in January. Asked to lecture on the topic “Critical Theories Are Antithetical to the Gospel,” Robinson argued during the main session that the spread of critical theory in the church was inevitable given the church’s acceptance of feminism, with women’s ordination being a decisive concession: Confuse men’s and women’s roles, and it’s hard to resist liberalism tout court. The sponsoring bishop and conference organizers found Robinson’s presentation “inexcusably provocative, and completely lacking in charity,” especially toward the female clergy in attendance, and so barred him from the closing panel discussion.

The conference’s title, a nod to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, implies that participants hold in common the essentials of Anglican belief. The conference is advertised as a venue in which difficult topics facing the Church can be thoughtfully engaged. Accordingly, Robinson was candid: “The priestess issue is directly related to the trans issue. If a man can become a woman, and a woman can become a man, why can’t a woman become a priest and a man become a mother?” Though this question may strike supporters of women’s ordination as unnecessarily provocative, the same type of argument was made by the conference’s patron saint more than seventy-five years ago. Robinson and Lewis both articulate the position of mere Christianity against the fashionable theologies of their times. They state what was the consensus position of the Great Tradition, East and West, before critical theory infected Protestantism.

Read the rest here.

Tuesday
Feb062024

David Virtue Says. . . .

"Nonetheless the whole subject stirred a hornet's nest of opinion, with commentaries coming down mostly on the side of Robinson with some even suggesting it could blow up the ACNA! That is not going to happen.  Since 2009, the ACNA has lived with the 'two integrities' and that seems likely in the foreseeable future. In truth there is nowhere else for the Anglo-Catholic to go to. The Continuing Church groups are way too splintered amongst themselves to offer a safe haven for ACNA's traditionalist wing."  (Read the rest here.)

Funny, since the Continuum has received and continues to receive laity, clergy and parishes from ACNA.  The Orthodox Anglican Church North America, where I am canonically resident, has received several clergy and two parishes that I know of during the last 3 or 4 years.  There might be more.  I don't know how many the G3 provinces have received from the ACNA, but I know they have received some. 

Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Communion also have the options of Rome and Orthodoxy.  Virtue's assertion that "there is nowhere else for the Anglo-Catholic to go to" is therefore patent nonsense.

Tuesday
Feb062024

Answering Bruce Atkinson

From Gerry Neal, writing at Throne, Altar, Liberty:  Ordinary Authority, the Apostolic Priesthood, Orthodox Anglicanism and Women’s Ordination

Mr. Atkinson is the "Apologist In Residence" of sorts at Virtue Online.  You can follow him in the comments section there, where he serves as moderator.  He and David Virtue have been generally critical of Fr. Calvin Robinson's raising the issue of women's ordination at the 2024 Mere Anglicanism Conference, which led to his dismissal from the panel discussion.  In his blog entry, Mr. Neal responds to Atkinson's bizarre argument in defense of ACNA's "dual integrities" policy with respect to the practice of women's ordination.

Tuesday
Jan232024

Some Post-Mortem on the Mere Anglicanism's Conference Treatment of Fr. Robinson

Following up on this.  I will provide updates as more of such rolls in.

BREAKING: Mere Anglicanism Conference "Cancels" Calvin Robinson, Fr. Mark Marshall

Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?, Fr. Jay Thomas at The North American Anglican

Canceling Calvin for Being Calvin: Fr. Calvin Robinson Exposes the Folly of “Dual Integrities”, Fr. Matt Kennedy

Fr. Calvin Robinson and Feminism, Solomon's Corner video commentary

An Anglican Tempest in Charleston, Bethel McGrew

Smoking Gun?  Fr. Robinson responds to the Rev'd Jeff Miller's spin doctoring.

Press Release concerning The Reverend Father Calvin Robinson, The Nordic Catholic Church

Cancelling Calvin Robinson: The American Anglican Crisis as Feminism Takes Truth & Integrity Hostage, Gavin Ashenden.  (Don't miss this one.  There are some real jewels here.)

Fr Calvin Robinson Interview: What Happened at the Mere Anglicanism Conference?, Fr. James Gadowski interviews Fr. Robinson

Mere Anglicanism, Mere Censorship! Calvin Robinson Speaks Out!, Fr. Brett Murphy interviews Fr. Robinson

The Great Anglican Disappointment: Calvin Robinson, Bishop Chip, and Women in the Church, Anne Kennedy

Rent Asunder? Calvin Robinson at Mere Anglicanism, Stand Firm Podcast

Will Orthodox Anglicans Please Stand Up?, Jonah Saller at Eastword

Statement of Forward in Faith North America

What's The Big Deal About Women's Ordination?, Fr. Mark Marshall

An Open Letter to the College of Bishops, Rev. Andrew Brashier at The North American Anglican

Anglican Unscripted 840

The Day the Gloves Came Off: An End to Detente in the ACNA, Fr. Lee Nelson at The North American Anglican

The Parting of Ways: Calvin Robinson's Case

 

"A voice emerging from the mist,

 Luring words she could not resist,

 'Listen to me,' the serpent hissed

To Eve, the proto-feminist." - Quoted or penned by one David Rudd


Friday
Oct132023

New to the Blog Roll