"Continuing Anglican" Churches - Arguably the most consistently traditional or "classical" Anglican churches.

Continuing Anglican Miscellany

"Anglican Realignment" Churches (ACNA, AMiA, and others) - Conservative but markedly less traditional.

Reformed Episcopal Church - Currently part of the Anglican Realignment but these days much more like the traditional Continuing Anglican bodies.


1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

A Living Text

Alastair's Adversaria

Akenside Press

American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council Videos on the 39 Articles


Anglican Audio

Anglican Bible and Book Society

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Church in North America

Anglican Church Planting

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Mainstream

Anglican Mission in the Americas

Anglican Mom

An Anglican Priest

Anglican Radio

Anglican Rose

Anglicanly Speaking

The Anglophilic Anglican

A BCP Anglican

The Book of Common Prayer (Blog of Photos)

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Cathedral Close

The Catholic Anglican

The Church Calendar

Church Society

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

Colorado Anglican Society

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

The Continuum

The Curate's Corner

The Cure of Souls

Drew's Views

The Evangelical Ascetic

Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen

Forward in Christ Magazine

Forward in Faith North America

Francis J. Hall's Theological Outlines

Free Range Anglican

The Hackney Hub

International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

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


Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury

Pusey House


Reformed Catholicism

Reformed Episcopal Church

The Ridley Institute

River Thames Beach Party

The Secker Society

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

Stand Firm


The Theologian

The World's Ruined


To All The World

Trinity House Blog

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online

We See Through A Mirror Darkly



The Babylon Bee

Bad Vestments

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire


Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People


Black-Robed Regiment

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

Cristero War

Benedict Option

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?



Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

Bernard of Clairvaux and the Knights Templar

Gates of Nineveh

Gates of Vienna

Islamophobes (We're in good company)

Jihad Watch

Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Restore Nineveh Now - Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI)

The Muslim Issue



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

Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility


Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

Mere Comments

Mitre and Crown

Monomakhos (Eastern Orthodox; Paleocon)

Tales of Chivalry

The Midland Agrarian

Those Catholic Men

Tim Holcombe: Anti-State; Pro-Kingdom

Midwest Conservative Journal

Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)

The Pipe Smoker

Red River Orthodox

The Salisbury Review

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)


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



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

An (Extended) Short History of the Diaconate

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

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

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters, J.I. Packer

Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes, Peter J. Leithart

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

Priestesses in Plano, Robert Hart

Priestesses in the Church?, C.S. Lewis

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

Streams of the River: Articles Outlining the Arguments Against the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood

Traditional Anglican Resources

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

Women Priests?, Eric Mascall

Women and the Priesthood, Catholic Answers

Women Priests: History & Theology, Patrick Reardon

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






                                                      Photo courtesy of Smash the Iron Cage

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


Martin Thornton on Anglicanism, Ecclesiology and the Benedictine Way

"If ascetical theology depends upon an accepted doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ, then Anglicanism fares no better than Protestantism. An equally varied body of opinion may be found in the ranks of the Church of England, but the significant difference is that, however abused, misused and misunderstood, Anglican ascetic is rooted in the Book of Common Prayer, which follows the universal pattern of Eucharist, Divine Office, personal devotion and habitual recollection, traceable through St Benedict to the New Testament. As an ascetical system the Book of Common Prayer presupposes the Catholic doctrine of the Church."

(The Rock and the River, Chap. 2)

H/T Matthew Dallman at Akenside Press.


Martin Thornton on Protestant Ecclesiology

"It would be untrue to say that Protestantism inevitably reduces the Church to a mere congregation of believers in this world, yet, in general, it remains suspicious of the full Catholic doctrine of the divine, ontological entity, eternally grounded in the permanence of the sacred humanity of Christ, embracing the saints in heaven and the departed in paradise; the Mystical Body of Christ in its fullness." - (The Rock and the River, chap. 2)

H/T Matthew Dallman at Akenside Press.


Geoffrey Kirk's Concluding Paragraphs

From his demolition job Without Precedent: Scripture, Tradition, and the Ordination of Women.  Speaking of the vote in the Church of England that allowed the ordination of women, he writes (bolded emphases mine):

A speech that passed almost unnoticed in the course of the debate was that of David Lunn, then Bishop of Sheffield.

The supporters of the legislation are divided on this issue of revelation, perhaps more than they realise. Some (the majority, I suspect, though we have not heard much from them on this matter today) . . . do not believe that there is a revelation with a given, known, tangible, authoritative content: the Holy Spirit leads us without embarrassing encumbrance from the past. Others, while believing in the reality of God's revealed truth, have convinced themselves that the revelation is silent on this "indifferent" matter of ministry. Oh, my deaf friends, hear me. If this legislation is approved this afternoon the authority of Scripture in the decision-making processes of the Church of England will have been inexorably and fatally weakened. Let me speak particularly to the House of Bishops.

The bishops are appointed to be the guardians of that faith once delivered to us.  To me it is both astonishing and distressing that the first fruits of the coming to prominence of so many Evangelicals among the bishops has been the steady carrying forward of this profoundly – at best – a-scriptural and probably unscriptural legislation. All of you, laywomen, laymen, deacons, presbyters, bishops, who believe that there is a concrete reality in God's revelation of himself, and that this is guarded, lived and handed on in Scripture and in the life of the Church, must hesitate for a very long time indeed before you vote for this legislation which, however its supporters may decorate it with quotations from Scripture, has its roots in a very different system of belief.

It was a speech that, in the eccentricity of its delivery, lost the impact it should have had. But it is packed with phrases prophetic of the future of the Church of England. "The Holy Spirit leads . . . without embarrassing encumbrance from the past." "The authority of scripture in the decision-making processes of the Church of England will have been inexorably weakened and fatally flawed!' "This legislation, however its supporters may decorate it with quotations from scripture, has its roots in a very different system of belief' Time has tested and proved the sagacity of those remarks. Though the Church of England continues, twenty years on, to celebrate the pain of those women who felt themselves denied their rights, the wisdom or otherwise of the innovation will be seen, not in its immediate fruits—the ministry of those women--but in the residual ability to deal with the social and ethical challenges which lie ahead. The immediate issue is that of homosexual marriage. No one in 1992, I suspect, envisaged a Conservative Party which would initiate changes in the understanding of marriage which would radically challenge the ipsissima verba of Jesus, the immemorial teaching of the Church, and the global cultural consensus of many millennia. But Vivienne Faull is right: "things are changing quickly in the country." And David Lunn was also right: the scriptural resources in the decision-making processes of the Church have been fatally weakened. (Michael Adie, you will recall, cited Jesus's own words about marriage, not to defend marital fidelity between a man and a woman—the burden of the texts—but to uphold a doctrine of sexual equality, which cannot be inferred from them.) It is not difficult to predict what the outcome will be. The real arguments in favor of women's ordination—anxiety about relevance and an un-nuanced attachment to human rights – makes the embrace of same-sex marriage only a matter of time.  The present Archbishop of Canterbury has said as much.  The church will be seen as “increasingly irrelevant”, Justin Welby told the General Synod, and as promoting attitudes “akin to racism.”  On another (and, some had maintained, unrelated) topic he has nothing better to say than George Carey.

David Lunn was also right about the origins of these ideas:  “legislation which, however its supporters may decorate it with quotations from Scripture, has its roots in a very different system of belief.” The language of inalienable and self-evident rights is very far from the unvarying vocabulary of the scriptures, which speak of divine will and gracious gift. It is the language of Jean-Jacques of Geneva, not of Jesus of Nazareth.

One is reminded here of the words of C.S. Lewis: "Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion."  Indeed.  Sad that so many Evangelicals, all of whom believe themselves to be "biblical Christians" par excellence, have conspired to support such an unbiblical and uncatholic practice as women's ordination, so unbiblical and uncatholic in fact as to constitute a different religion, a difference in kind, not just degree.  We might be able to forgive Evangelicals who do not have a Catholic ecclesiology or a Catholic view of ordination.  Anglicans, however, cannot be forgiven.


Alice Linsley on the ACNA Task Force on Holy Orders

"The Task Force has started with the three stream error. It is faced with the impossible task of coming to a theological compromise that allows the 3 groups to stay in fellowship. Of the 3 streams, Evangelicals and Charismatics tend to be more comfortable with the notion that God is doing a "new thing" which runs against the very nature of catholicity which stresses the unity and consistency of doctrine and practice throughout Church history. The enemy often derails us by creating confusion. That is what we have in the ACNA today. My prediction is that the ACNA will hold together because of the great affection that its members hold for one another, and the desire to prolong its life. However, over time the ACNA will have fewer and fewer catholic minded members. It will end up being mainly a 2-stream body."

Word.  Indeed, as I noted here, "If (ACNA) agrees with ACNA theologian William Witt that Anglicans are mere "Reformation Christians" and accordingly that it is under no obligation to "prayerfully consider" the admonitions of Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglicans who still believe that their church is a branch of the Catholic Church, then let ACNA say so and go its merry Protestant way."

Stay tuned here for a quotation from the hard-hitting conclusion of Geoffrey Kirk's
Without Precedent: Scripture, Tradition, and the Ordination of Women, which among other things faults Evangelicals in the Church of England for the role they played in forcing this uncatholic innovation upon the church.


Update on the Post Below

Some new activity on ACNA Facebook page discussion referenced in the post below.

My friend Alice Linsley is a former Episcopalian priest who renounced her orders because, first of all, she is devoted to the Catholic Faith, and secondly because she became convicted that the ordination of women is a practice that stands in opposition to it.  She has been a vocal critic of the practice since then.  Like me, she sojourned briefly in the Orthodox Church, and also like me found a true home in orthodox Anglicanism.

Mrs. Linsley recently penned an article critical of ACNA's "dual integrity" policy, which was published at Virtue Online.  It is fittengly entitled, "The Mushy Thinking of Neo-Anglicans".  She posted a link to this article and other comments at the ACNA Facebook discussion, to which I responded by posting a link to the Touchstone/Mere Comments article also critical of ACNA from S.M. Hutchens, which, as I noted in the post below, the moderators at the Facebook page initially refused to accept.  As of this morning, to their credit, it's still there.

However, that hasn't stopped certain participants from kvetching about us.  One of them is my friend Chuck Collins, a priest in the ACNA and author of Reformation Anglicanism: Biblical - Generous - Beautiful.  Rev. Collins is a staunch advocate of the Edwardian/Genevan phase of the English Reformation and a critic of Anglicans who see both Caroline and Tractarian divinity as a needed corrective to it.  Unlike many Reformed Anglicans, however, he is an advocate of women's ordination.  He complained with what he deemed to be the proper sarcasm:

I think it's great if ACNA fixates on an issue of which equally committed, biblical Christians disagree while the world is dying to hear about Jesus Christ. Congratulations.

This prompted a response from Cindy Larsen, an ACNA priest:

Chuck, that is why many of us do not respond to such things. We are keeping the main thing the main thing. What matters is Jesus!

Which elicited this response from Rev. Collins: 

Thanks Cindy. In my advanced age, you would think that I would have learned by now. Sigh.

So you see, because "equally committed, biblical Christians disagree" on this issue, and because "the world is dying to hear about Jesus Christ", it isn't worth "responding to such things".  "What matters is Jesus!"  We sad traditionalists, in defending apostolic and Catholic faith and practice, are missing the big evangelistic picture doncha know.

Well, my response at the Facebook discussion to Revs. Collins and Larsen this morning is as follows: 

"What matters is Jesus."

A proposition that stands at the very heart of the argument against women's ordination. Luke 6:46-49.

- What matters is Jesus, who was incarnated in the form of a male as reflective of the masculinity of God everywhere revealed in Holy Scripture.

- What matters is Jesus, who Jesus picked 12 men as his successors.

- What matters is Jesus, who promised to send the Holy Spirit to his successors to lead them into all truth.

- What matters is Jesus, who continued to be Lord of the Church after the death of apostles, and made His will known though Tradition, the "life of the Holy Spirit in the Church" (Vladimir Lossky).

- What matters is Jesus, in whom a male priest stands in persona Christi and hence must be a male.

- What matters is Jesus, who warned about those who called him Lord but refused to do what he says.

Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

If there was ever a case in the history of the Church where churchmen and churchwomen refused to do the bidding of Christ, causing a great fall of their house, it is this the adoption of the uncatholic monstrosity known as women's ordination.  What's more "Reformation Anglicanism" may be largely to blame here.  If what I read on Facebook and elsewhere from ACNA clergymen on all manner of issues, the strain in ACNA is already beginning to be seen.

There is only one way to save the house, and that is to rebuild it on the Rock, which is precisely what traditional Anglicans are trying to do.  But this doesn't matter to the proponents of women's ordination in the Anglican Church of North America.  In this article, Fr. Robert Hart complained, "How can we talk about theology to people who answer with sociology, political theory and trendy psychology?"  To that we might add people who answer with glib statements about "biblical Christians" who disagree on the issue and the "untold millions" dying to hear the Gospel.


They're Not "Prayerfully Considering" Anything at the ACNA Facebook Page

In the combox dicussion under S.M. Hutchens' article, "The Conservative Episcopalian Mess", upon which I commented yesterday, an ACNA priest who happens to be a Facebook friend of mine objected to what he viewed as the article's unfairness: 

I wonder if the writer has spoken to other bishops? Well over 70-80% of ACNA bishop are against WO. Right now the College of Bishop are prayerfully seeking the Lord as how to deal with this matter. The author seems to show a level of ignorance of someone who is outside the fight, and complaining about how the boxer is swinging!

Now it is true that the majority of the ACNA's bishops are against WO, but as Hutchens said in his reply,

Alas, though, I have been around long enough not to be even slightly impressed with a bunch of bishops, or anyone else, “prayerfully considering things.” In fact, I am almost at the point where when I am told that things are being considered prayerfully by anybody, I may assume that they wouldn’t change their pre-formed opinion on the article under consideration even if one appeared from the dead. If they manage to do what they should, now that will be impressive. (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed.  The ACNA needs to decide whether or not it is truly a branch of the one, holy catholic and apostolic church, as Anglicans have long asserted about the Church of England and her progeny.  If it is, then it will end the uncatholic innovation of women's ordination forthwith.  If, rather, it agrees with ACNA theologian William Witt that Anglicans are mere "Reformation Christians" and accordingly that it is under no obligation to "prayerfully consider" the admonitions of Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglicans who still believe that their church is a branch of the Catholic Church, then let ACNA say so and go its merry Protestant way.

If the trend over at the ACNA Facebook page is any indication of just how prayerfully its managers are considering the question of women's ordination, well, it is clearly out of sync with the majority of the bishops.  Several days ago I posted a link there to an important new work by Geoffrey Kirk entitled Without Precedent: Scripture, Tradition and the Ordination of Women.  My post lingered on pending status for awhile and eventually disappeared.  Yesterday I posted a link to the Hutchens article along with the quotation I set forth in the blog entry below.  It went to pending status, and this morning I found that my post again had disappeared.  They clearly aren't having any.

All of which highlights why we can all appreciate the quandary in which the majority of bishops find themselves.  Should they "manage to do what they should", ACNA will rupture.   And that's precisely why they won't do what they should.  Unity trumps Catholic faith and practice.


A Challenge to the Anglican Church in North America from Steve Hutchens

The Conservative Episcopalian Mess.

Presiding Bishop Foley Beach, who is himself opposed to women’s ordination, notes in favor of the arrangement that “a lot of the women priests in ACNA have stood side-by-side with a number of our bishops and clergy who are against women’s ordination when they were in the Episcopal Church. These women argued for the right of these bishops to have the freedom to not ordain women. Women’s ordination is a very complicated issue, because we’ve got people who have given their heart and soul on each side. And, these people are sincere; they’re godly”

This is the center of the mess. The sort of people who should be in authority in the churches should evince the kindness, loyalty, and reasonableness seen in Bp. Beach. Here we have no evident crotchetiness, misogyny, queerness, vain ambition, pigheaded resistance to reasonable change, or simpering, lacy, power-addicted prelacies. The women priests are doubtless superior Christians of deep sincerity, and when considered functionally, pastoral competence.

But they are not men. As worthy as they may otherwise be, they cannot stand in the place of the man, with all the theological, sacramental, and symbolic significance of the male who is Christ, the head of the church, and in whose place the officiant at pulpit, altar, and the father of the congregation stands. The conservative priestess does not mean to, but she denies Christ by denying the testimony of his maleness as the incarnate Son, and stands where she does with and because of egalitarians who set the sex of the Lord at nought by teaching that the significance of his incarnation and Lordship lies only in his humanity and not in his sex. Translated into the convictions of the mediating churches this means that women priests, being fully human, are for that reason seen as just as qualified for the presbyterial office as men are—and in the case of the leaders of ACNA—that the denomination as a whole, in its generosity, good temper, reasonableness, and patience, is willing to give forth an uncertain sound on the “oughtness” of women’s ordination.

Who will deny that many women presbyters have the most pious intentions and aspirations?  But what does this matter when the question of whether they may hold this office is essentially theological, and calls for a yes or no conclusion?  I would ask ACNA in particular whether their toleration of women priests can stand up to serious examination in light of the doctrines to which they profess to hold, reflected in the symbolic life of their church, and whether a negative response to this question can sustain adequate ground for including in their communion those who answer it positively. The issue goes to the heart of the doctrine of Christ (that is why egalitarian theologians are so concerned with leveling the Trinity to comport with their views), and because of this it is a matter of “essentials” that cannot be treated as adiaphora or an article covered by exhortations to charity.

This confusion is of the least eradicable kind, for it is found where there is much solid thinking, good will, reason, courage, and integrity, so that addressing the problem properly looks like the pettiness and compulsiveness of inferior versions of continuing Anglicanism from which many of the member churches of the ACNA have made a long and painful escape, and in which this seemingly small measure of liberality is a valued–and necessary–part of a new identity.

The discussion in the combox section is also a must read, particularly the responses to one Karen, a supporter of WO plying her feminist theological wares.  The replies are classic.


Here's The Thing

With Augustine, Calvin, and the Reformed, I believe that no one becomes a Christian "unless the Father draw him."  Thus far my agreement with the Edwardian/Cranmerian phase of the English Reformation.

But I also understand why English Arminianism took issue with the Augustinian and Reformed doctrines of grace.  "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."  Thus my affirmation of Anglican Arminianism.

I am entertaining thoughts of ways these Scriptures can actually be harmonized without resorting either to Calvinism or Arminianism.  Stay tuned.


ACNA and the Anglican Disease

I was talking with a friend the other day who is currently serving in an ACNA mission but who comes from the APA.  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 peeople 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.

I've alluded here at OJC to what my friend is talking about, calling it the "Anglican Disease."  What happened to Anglicanism, I maintain, is that both the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment worked in tandem to cut the CofE and her daughters loose from the Catholic faith, the former doing so by its preference for the academy over Catholic authority to settle theological questions, the latter doing so by its radical questioning of all traditional authority - which took place, again, mainly in Anglican academies.  In this day and age even purported conservative Anglican theologians are not immune to the disease.  Witness, for example, ACNA theologian William Witt's reference to "Ph.D Anglicanism" and "Reformation Christians" in his defense of the uncatholic monstrosity of women's ordination.  Dr. Witt and too many like him in ACNA are examples of the phenomenon my friend was talking about.  These people believe themselves to be conservative Anglicans, when nothing could be further from the truth.   They are to Anglicanism what neo-conservativism is to the GOP.  One perceptive writer at Touchstone calls them "latcons."


Are We Catholic Or Not?

I watch the theological posts of my Anglican friends, who run the gamut from Anglo-Pentecostal to Anglo-Calvinist to Anglo-Papalist, with much intrigue, and honestly with a little sadness, as they strive to prove to one and all that their version of Anglicanism is the true or "classical" one. Alas, the vexing question of Anglican identity.

My own take at this juncture in my Anglican studies is somewhat different. On the one hand, as a Westerner soteriologically speaking I stand squarely in the Augustinian school, which means at the bare minimum that I believe no one becomes a Christian unless God makes him one. On the other hand, I am increasingly of the mind that the Reformation, including the English Reformation, has empirically shown itself to be a failed experiment, its laudable Augustinian underpinnings notwithstanding. All Anglicans, from the Cranmerians to the Catholics, have argued that the Reformed Church of England and her progeny is nothing less than the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, restored in England by the pious efforts of Reformers, Kings and Parliaments. Ideally in these folks' thinking, "Catholic" and "Protestant" need not be opposed, especially since in Anglicanism, so the argument runs, the Reform was essentially Catholic.

However, those who stress the Protestant character of Anglicanism need to come to terms with the fact that the history of Protestantism is one that betrays one defection from historic Catholic faith after another, in both its "conservative" and liberal expressions. For me, this is the determinative and damning commentary on the Reformation.

When the Cranmerians and Carolinians alleged that the Church of England sought to be nothing more than the Church of the Fathers, did they really mean what they said? Do their modern successors mean what they say? I really wonder. Neo-Puritans (Presbyterians with prayer books), charismaniacs, egalitarians (WO), emergentists: what a hodge-podge of everything that is anything but historically and essentially Catholic.

Canon Arthur Middleton nails it, IMHO. And so my advice to my Anglo-Protestant friends is this: give up the old Anglican claim to catholicity. You may be altogether right in your ecclesiological and soteriological claims, but if so, give up that claim. Be the Protestants that you are, and Lord bless. Perhaps you will finally be able to manifest what the Reformers, and their progeny to date, have never been able to manifest.

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*, now that I have separated from a Colorado parish and seek to enter into a North Carolinian one, but I'm thinking that the ramification of what I've said here means a return to the Anglican Continuum, which Continuum hopes some day to find a satisfactory ecclesial reconciliation with Rome or Orthodoxy (likely the latter). We shall see about that. Regardless, 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.

Happily, I have more options here in WNC than I did in Denver, as far as the Continuum is concerned.



We're in the process of moving from Colorado to the latest culture war front here in the States, North Carolina.  Few if any blog posts until we get moved and settled.   Don't touch that dial!


Dr. Michael Brown's Call to Resistance

A Call for National Civil Disobedience to Obama’s Public School Transgender Bathroom Mandate.

It's a nice start, Dr. Brown.  We'll count it as an addendum to the late Francis Schaeffer's Christian Manifesto.  But there is likely more to be said to the tyrants about the measure of our resolve.


Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet

Referring to this recent blog article from Prof. Tushnet: Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism.

A representative conservative response, from the Christian Post, can be read here.

As I pondered the opinions of this execrable fellow, the assessment of anti-liberal attorney and author Jim Kalb came to mind:

Right-wingers are alarmed by totalitarian features of advanced liberalism: its insistent universalism, its theoretical coherence and simplicity, its resolute suppression of alternative principles of social order, its principled rejection of common sense, inherited ways, and the very concept of human nature. In the long run, they ask, how much difference can there be between “inclusiveness”—putting all persons and all human goals and actions into a single relation to a single universal and comprehensive order of things—and “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”? If anything, the former aspiration seems more unlimited and therefore more frightening.

From the liberal standpoint, of course, all this is a joke. The liberal state is different from every other state. It’s a system of power that isn’t a system of power. It has a ruling class of experts, functionaries and lawyers that is reliably disinterested and moral. By controlling everything it sets everything free. That’s why it’s not fanaticism but moderation to say that only liberal states are legitimate. Worrying about “totalitarian liberalism” is like worrying about “oppression by neutrality” or “enslavement by freedom.” It might be an interesting paradox, but as a practical matter it just shows there’s something wrong with you. Above all, liberals are good people and don’t do bad things except to the extent they fall short of liberalism.

Still, what are the practicalities? It may be right—I think it is—to shrug off the liberal self-image as hopelessly self-deluded, but there are some things to say in its favor. In principle, liberalism may be far more ambitious than Mussolini’s fascism, and its ultimate goals may be far more inhuman, but it habitually proceeds by much softer means. Rather than crush an opposing force directly it weakens it by a thousand influences that make it unable to function and assert itself. Criminal prosecutions, when they come, are just a way of formalizing and putting beyond dispute a principle that’s already all but universally accepted. The Swedish government didn’t decide to toss Ake Green in the slammer for a sermon denouncing homosexuality until the Swedes had abandoned religion, made the provident state the basis of everything, and decided that since family relationships no longer served a serious function the sole public standard for sexual connections would be universal equal acceptance. When they came for Pastor Green, no one defended him and they could do what they wanted without being forced outside their comfort zone.

In the end, the liberal state is not principled, and nothing built into liberalism limits how far it can go. Nonetheless, it’s enduringly squeamish. It will use the final measure of force only against weak opponents whom everyone that matters has agreed to hold in contempt. Groups and institutions that stand firm, present their views forcefully and confidently, and keep on going in the face of abuse—who preach the word in all settings, in season and out of season—will prevail. That’s something Catholics, among others, need to remember. How bad things get—and they could get very, very bad—is up to us.

My own response to Tushnet, which I sent to him in an email, reads as follows:

OK, but just as long as we are permitted to treat you like Commies right back.

All sorts of stuff to be read into that one, isn't there, professor? :>)

It's clear from Tushnet's article that liberal-left activists will continue to use lawfare to produce "fundamental change" in these here United States, and that the losers in that war should be treated like defeated Confederates, nay, defeated Nazis.  Of course, implied in all this is the notion that the activist courts will continue to be able to rely on American law enforcement to do their will.

But what if that notion is a faulty one?  What happens if American law enforcement, and I'm thinking here mainly Middle American law enforcement, refuses to enforce the law, or what happens if a blindly obedient law enforcement runs up against a popular counterforce they have absolutely no chance of defeating?

What then, Professor Tushnet?


Pentecost 2016

An excellent homily from Fr. Robert Hart (Anglican Catholic Church, OP).  More germane than ever, given the times in which we live.


Russian Orthodox Patriarch Declares Worldwide ‘Holy War’ on Terrorism 

From RT:

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has called the fight against terrorism a “holy war” and urged international unity and an abandoning of double standards to defeat this global evil.

Today, when our warriors take part in combat operations in the Middle East, we know that this is not an aggression, occupation or an attempt to impose some ideology on other people, this has nothing to do with supporting certain governments,” Patriarch Kirill said as he held the Friday mass at the major Moscow memorial to those who fought in World War II. “This is the fight against the fearsome foe that is currently not only spreading evil through the Middle East but also threatening the whole of mankind.”

He added: “Today, we call this evil terrorism.”. . . .

He also told Orthodox believers to pray for the Russian military to remain faithful to the spiritual course that only allows the use of armed forces against evil, for justice and to save human lives.

In February this year, the chief foreign spokesman of the Russian Orthodox Church said in a press interview that global leaders should overcome political dissent and unite in fighting international terrorism as the challenge to mankind at large.

Over at a Facebook page called Fellowship of Orthodox,Catholic & Anglican Christians, a perplexed Orthodox member asks, "Surely an Orthodox patriarch is not calling for a crusade??!!", to which I have replied, "Why not?".

You may remember my exchanges with an Orthodox reader named Stefano, who objected to Orthodox resistance to terrorism being linked with the Crusades.  Most of his ire against the Crudades is wrapped up with his ideological Orthodox opposition to all things Western, and he clrearly wasn't impressed by the fact that it was a Byzantine -- and hence Orthodox -- emperor who requested military aid from the West, thus touching off the Crusades.

As Roman Catholic historian Thomas Madden has amply demonstrated in his Crusades scholarship, while they indeed went awry in several ways, at heart they were part of a defensive and therefore just war.  Now we have one of the most important patriarchs in the Orthodox Church calling for precisely that. 

If there is to be a new Crusade against Muslim imperialism -- and Muslim imperialism is PRECISELY what we're fighting in our struggle not only against terrorism but against demographic replacement in Western Europe and the Anglosphere -- then of necessity the call for it will have to come from the Orthodox East.   The secular West not only hasn't a clue about what's happening, it is far too bankrupt and dissolute to be of any good in this matter.

One fellow commeting at the RT article had this to say:

Roman Catholic here.  I acknowledge the patriarchs as a leading force in the church. Personally of course not as much as the pope, but I reckon the church has spoken.

Indeed it has, and we will hear no such call from "Frank the Hippie Pope", who is too busy singing Scott McKenzie songs about "tearing down walls" and suchlike.   We Anglicans must look to the Orthodox Church and to Eastern Europe for guidance these days, for our heads of state, and sadly most of our bishops, have their heads in the sand.  Kudos, and Many Years, Patriarch Kirill!


Deus Vult

To celebrate taking back the ancient city of Palmyra, Russia stages a concert in the ruins.  (H/T Traditional Britian Group).

One of Russia’s leading conductors led a St Petersburg symphony orchestra in a concert in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra on Thursday, in a bold propaganda stunt celebrating Russia’s role in recapturing the city from Islamic State

Valery Gergiev, a vocal supporter of Vladimir Putin, conducted the Mariinsky Symphony Orchestra in the ancient city’s famous amphitheatre for an audience of Syrian and Russian soldiers as well as journalists.

Luv, luv, luv it.  Thanks be to the True God.


Kingdom of Ice

Muscular Christian music, right here.  Christian, Anglo-Saxon sturm und drang.  It's perfect.  I wish all contemporary Christian music was this good.

Thinking about naming the music of my fellow Coloradan David Eugene Edwards and Wovenhand the official music of The Old Jamestown Church blog.

Job 39: 19-25; 40:5.

Did you, O man
Give horse his might?
And did you, O man
Clothe his neck with mane?

He rushes out
To meet the sword
He laughs at fear
And is not dismayed, hey!

Lay hand to mouth
Spoken once
I have no answer
Lay hand to mouth
Spoken twice
I will say no more

In fierceness and rage
He paws at the ground
He smells the battle from afar
He turns not back
From its thunderous sound, hey!

Lay hand to mouth
Spoken once
You have no answer
Lay hand to mouth
Spoken twice
And say no more, hoy!

He stands alight
The flames of a clear eye
We ride from here on
To his kingdom of ice

He stands alight
He stands alight
We ride from here on
To his kingdom of ice


What, Me Worry?

"Extremely Worrying": EU military police carry out civil unrest crisis training.

400 arrested as left-wing protestors clash with far-right in Germany.

Regarding the second article, note one of the chants heard among the leftists: "Keep refugees, drive Nazis away!"   Of course, that is just the sort of irrationalism and irony we've come to expect from the left in Europe and the Anglospgere.  It's irrational because members of the AfD aren't Nazis, and it's ironic given the reality noted by Diana West in her article "Connecting the dots on Islam":

Besides the will to resist, then, we need the knowledge to resist -- the knowledge that there is in the religion of Islam itself the historical, inexorable and driving force behind what the entire non-Muslim world is now experiencing as jihad terror. Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed.

"Deceptively inverted assault."  That drescribes the modus operandi of the left pretty well, I think.  Reason No. 2,369 why the liberal-left must be taken down by any means necessary and never allowed to govern again.

This is what's coming in Europe, and, if we don't play our cards right, here in North America as well.  Traditionalist Anglicans know this and have largely found their tongues about it.  The "neocons" in the Anglican Realignment still not only have their heads in the sand, but some of them sound an awful lot like the lefties described in the article. 


Anglicans and Roman Catholics Discuss Recognition of Ministry

This is a hopeful sign, though I have picked up intimations from modern Catholic bishops and scholars hither and yon that they know that Anglican orders are valid Catholic orders.  I'm with Dom Gregory Dix on this one:  there is no need for Anglicans to sweat the orders issue.   What they need to be concerned about is when Catholics don't behave like Catholics, and Anglicans, including purportedly conservative ones, have some serious repenting to do in this regard.  Exhibit A: Women's ordination. 


The West Dies With Its Gods

Yes, it does.  And our God reigns.  Viva Cristo Rey.

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 Next 20 Entries »