UPDATED 1 Feb 2020:
I have an apology to make. Not to the cofE.
Yesterday, before I had read anything else, I checked my mail. A couple of friends with whom I often exchange news, both dire and ironic, for the blog had included me in this.
As you can see, my corresponded wrote, not as part of a link, “Th [sic] Church of England apologizes for it’s temporary lapse into Christianity.”
I thought that was a pretty snappy line. I did a post with it. I did not know that the origin of the outstandingly sardonic quip was the perennially funny Eccles is saved. I hadn’t seen that blog yesterday. Had I known, I absolutely would have given attribution. My sincere apology for stepping on Eccles feet. I didn’t get the phrase directly from his blog, but indirectly. In any event, that’s where it came from and he deserves the credit.
That said, there is another issue. The blog Rorate.
One of the writers at Rorate has for some time now often posted truly nasty things about me. For a long time that bothered me because I had no idea why the hostile turn. I have on quite a few occasions reached out on the blog toward them with an olive branch. To no avail. The fragmentation of the traditional side of the blogosphere does nothing but to harm our common cause, the restoration of worthy sacred liturgical worship, without which no other project in the Church will succeed.
In the wake of Eccles alert that I had used his line (again, sorry about that) Rorate, again, used the occasion again to attack me publicly in a Tweet.
That’s what he does. Our whole problem with him has always been this one, and this one only.
It doesn’t look good.
— Rorate Caeli (@RorateCaeli) January 31, 2020
That’s the “only problem”. That’s good. At least, now I know it.
Here’s the deal.
Firstly, I am glad at least to know something about the rough parameter of Rorate’s “problem” with me. Someone there – he wrote “we” but I know writers for Rorate – who seems to be the main contributor, believes that I have taken their lines without attribution.
Frankly, I am not aware that I have done that. I searched back in my email and found a puzzling exchange from 2013 – yes, 2013 – in which the Rorate chap refers to something I don’t any longer recall anything about, something have to do with Card. Bergoglio perhaps approving hybrid Masses in Argentina. It was
2013 – Seven years – Perhaps it’s time to bury the hatchet?
Even the Bible says that seven years is a time of grace.
I am happy to clear the air in private way, if that will help.
Meanwhile, I send my cordial regards to Eccles, hoping that he is still saved, even after my inadvertent posting of his seriously funny line.
My apologies for that, to Eccles, and thanks for his lighter touch in pointing it out.
Maybe we can bring something out of this to help souls, which is more important than clicks.
___ Originally Published on: Jan 31, 2020 at 09:17
The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus said that the Anglican Church existed in order to make irony redundant.
Today I read that the church of England apologized for its temporary lapse into Christianity.
From The Guardian…
Church sorry for saying that sex is just for married heterosexuals
Church of England archbishops acknowledge pastoral guidance ‘jeopardised trust’
The archbishops of Canterbury and York have apologised over a statement issued by Church of England bishops last week which declared that only married heterosexuals should have sex.
Justin Welby and John Sentamu said they took responsibility for releasing the statement which “jeopardised trust”. They added: “We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.”
The archbishops’ statement did not retract the substance of the “pastoral guidance” issued by the bishops, but implied it should not have been issued while the C of E is in the midst of a review of its teaching on sexuality and marriage.
Hey, let’s not be too hard on the “c“hurch of England.
Do you remember a few years back the disastrous Card. Kasper and his appalling “tolerated, but not accepted” kabuki dance whereby objective adulterers with no purpose of amendment would be admitted to Communion?
In effect, Kasper infamously suggested to the bishops in the Extraordinary Synod (“walking together”) on the Family, during his looooong, flimsy ramble about Communion for the “remarried”, that there could/should be a “tolerated, but not accepted” solution. That is: “The Church won’t accept your new status, because you are obviously committing adultery and Christ made it clear that you couldn’t ‘marry’ again with your spouse still on this side of the grass, but – hey! – we will hold our noses and watch you go to Communion anyway. You can be a kind of pity case or second class Catholic. We will tolerate you, but not accept you.”
I remind all my readers who are perhaps mired in the cofE and its other branches, that there is something called Anglicanorum coetibus. If you can’t stand it anymore, cross the Tiber.
Benedict XVI! The Pope of Christian Unity!
On the flip side, I still think the cofE should issue a response to Anglicanorum coetibus. They should issue Romanorum coetibus by which they can welcoming into their “ecclesial community” (remember, according to Dominus Iesus they don’t have a real Church because they don’t have valid apostolic succession), all the dissident Catholics who, rebelling against the Magisterium, desire to keep their most treasured customs. There in the embrace of the Anglicans they can have their clay pot chalices and burlap banners, their ditties and rainbow stoles, and gender free sex, free from the interference
Perhaps this is a good moment for a bunch of Jesuits – irony much? – to leave and join the cofE.