I've been reading Jane Austen.
She made it very clear what Anglicanism is and why, even in her time, the notion of a devout believing Anglican clergyman was something of a peculiarity. The idea of a man going into 'the church' because he believed he had a vocation to help save souls would simply have appeared ridiculous to the English of 1810.
H/T to Chris
9 comments:
In all my surfing of Christian blogs I think yours must be one of the most offensive. Why all the Anglican bashing?
By the way, John Keble was born in 1792, Pusey 1800, Newman 1801, Froude 1803, all 'devout believing Anglican clergymen' and far from being a peculiarity.
If you intend to continue leaving comments here, please be good enough to read the commbox rules, particularly those regarding tone.
I submit that the reason they are famous is that they were indeed peculiar. And was it not the purpose of the tractarian movement, the Oxford movement, to try to establish Anglicanism as a religion, rather than a shallow social niceity. A project which appears to have failed abjectly, as Newman's entry into the Church later proved.
This is a Catholic blog, moreover it is the site of a Catholic traditionalist. If you are coming here expecting sympathy for heretical and schismatic movements you are coming to the wrong place.
BTW: it is alos required here that a person leaving any comment, and most especially comments using so unpleasant a tone, own up to them by leaving a name. There is nothing more despicable in the internet world than the common habit of anonymous drive-by nastiness in commboxes. You will find this a rule of great antiquity here, and one that is very strictly, one might say ruthlessly, enforced.
Why all the Anglican bashing?
Is there a better way to spend the afternoon? Pshaw!
Dear Mr. "HJM",
First of all I have to apologize for my English, which happens (as you will detect without difficulties) not to be my mother-tongue. Neverthteless I trust you'll be able to grasp the point of my posting ...
Well, in my humble opinion, the poster "Anonymus" isn't totally wrong in his observation! Even more: I cannot find any reason to criticise his "tone" — I've read his short posting and wonder what wording therein should be "using so unpleasant a tone"?
He objects the "Anglican bashing" and finds your blog offensive. When I look to the postings of "HJMW" and "BillyHW", I'd rather say: yes, this blog is dealing with Anglican bashing, and it is voluntarily designed to be offensive, indeed. The mentioned postings make it quite clear, I'd say ...
"Anonymus" has done some futile posting in criticizing your position. It is clear that this blog isn't designed at all to discuss religious positions objectively. Whether or not it is a wise decision designing your blog that way is not my duty (and not even my slightest interest) to decide ... it's entirely up to you, I'd say!
After all, the only thing you can poor "Anonymus" accuse of, is his anonymity. This may be bad manners, but not unpleasant tone ...
Yes? And?
The response is as above. Anglicanism is worth bashing...while it continues to exist.
Also within my purview is to decide for my own wee self, in my own wee corner of the internet, how to interpret someone's tone. Furthermore, I have had long-established and very firm rules about identifying one's self when making comments.
My final response is as above: no one is forcing anyone to visit here.
@Hilary Jane Margaret White:
Be assured I won't visit your blog again — I consider any discussion with somebody, obviously trying to overcome her neurotic inhibitions by putting on a strongman act, as empty miles.
I should have clicked on your profile pic earlier — I hadn't wasted my time to type any posting at all ...
And there was rejoicing in heaven.
I'd rather say: yes, this blog is dealing with Anglican bashing, and it is voluntarily designed to be offensive, indeed.
Now there's a keen grasp of the obvious!
Post a Comment