tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post8265261516738540041..comments2009-10-08T23:10:25.310-04:00Comments on Summorum Pontificum: Anglicans: Let 'em sink or let 'em swim?Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-49160100504961267332008-07-09T15:07:00.000-04:002008-07-09T15:07:00.000-04:00Gerald Warner was right only in his opening questi...Gerald Warner was right only in his opening question: Yes, it's just him.<BR/><BR/>His points are valid but do not take adequately into account the fact that these Anglicans grew up in an entire culture of error. Extricating it from themselves has been a life-long work-in-progress. They are emotionally attached to an erroneous worldview. Does Mr. Warner honestly doubt that they are now looking back, with a new perspective, and realising that they should have left this ship of confusion much earlier? <BR/><BR/>As to transubstantiation and other dogma, most of these Anglo-Catholics are probably more Catholic than 'renewed' Vatican II pewsitters, most of whom don't know what that word means and can't spell it.<BR/><BR/>(One last note: no, the Pope's statement on womanpreist was NOT infallible, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger later explained, although the teaching given is probably infallible. More than a plural number is needed to make a statement itself infallible. The Cardinal wrote that it is 'practically' unchangeable, the adjective being used in the older sense of 'in practice'. In other words, the teaching is irreformable whether infallible or not. But I digress.)<BR/><BR/>We need to be charitable and accommodating to these people, who are attached to particular forms of prayer which are not inadmissible in themselves. Yes, they deserve separate structues to protect them from the wolves in the English Catholic Novus Ordo hierarchy.<BR/><BR/>P.K.T.P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com