Inquiries in the Court of High Commission

If you had said that in the first place I wouldn’t have been shocked or offended. I am as concerned as you are by some things that I hear and read. I do, however, feel that your response to me in the terms you made it was uncalled for and upsetting - a personal attack rather than a polite disagreement with my expressed view.

 

There is a great deal you don't get Stalwart and most of it has been taught by Christ. I suggest you cool it. You are behaving like a bear with a sore head. What is really the matter?

Defending the faith is a laudable objective, but it is well to remember that "Defender of the Faith" was a title awarded Henry the Eighth, and he was hardly considered one of the 'good guys'.

 

I also wasn’t saying that “too much” is being done (generally) in defence of the Christian faith - but in this particular case I felt the argument was going round in circles, getting nowhere and becoming unedifying.

 

I'm going to day that personal attack was out of order. Nothing justified it.

It's a small step from being strong in defense of the faith to being thought police, attacking anyone with a different opinion.

I have strict commission to maintain order, not get into debates, so I will not comment on this thread.

But I will say it's possible to be firm and still charitable.

 

Those that lack discernment, out of fear, tend to stick to rules and regulations instead of the Truth.
Those that can discern the truth go deeper, as the Word does. They will be seen as a threat by the fearful. No wonder Jesus Christ got crucifed.

Relying on flesh is the same as relying on the pages of the written Word. Spirit is within as much as Truth is within the Word.

Most Christians will, at the End, realize they got it all wrong. That they relied on the wrong thing - their own fearful story about being a Christian.

 

I just want to say how much I love this feature of this community. Out of curiosity are there any restrictions or disqualifiers for membership aside from acceptance of the creeds, formularies, et cetera, or does anyone who adheres to the traditional Anglican doctrine qualify?

 

I disagree, but I also have a question: why do you talk about Flesh as if it is evil? And why do you talk about Jesus Christ and the Word as if they are two different things?

 

Well what you have is a community which is respectful, where I feel welcome and comfortable as an Orthodox Christian, even though I am not presently Anglican, but am considering how to help them.

Also frankly I don’t see what the fuss is about, because the Anglican badge is optional, but then again the heretical elements that are trying to destroy the churches we love specialize in outrage-on-demand.

 

Posted by mistake

 

Can I just have it clarified what the "formularies" are in respect to Anglican identity

 

I myself am leaning towards acceding to this; I just have to make sure I can fully agree with the 1662 BCP on the question of the Eucharist, and I think I can, because it did not stop chaps who I admire of a high church orientation like Rev. Percy Dearmer, who on the contrary demanded it be followed and structured The Parson’s Handbook around the assumption that it was in use, rather than a translation of the Roman Missal or even the actual Roman Missal one would encounter in that same decade at St. Magnus the Martyr.

 

By the way, I cannot stress enough my support for this Court and this badge.