Terminology: A rose by any other name …

I seem to invoked some interest in my rhetorical question about naming of various elements within Anglicanism. Terminology is important. A drift into Nominalism is always a danger for the modern church. What was it the Presiding Bishop of the TEC has recently said: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box. A heresy by any other name still stinks.

So, to start the thinking process, here is an interesting post at the FiFNA website, Why I am an Anglo-Catholic, by The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, SSC.

Bishop Acherman makes the following point in the clsoing section of the post:

The new question is: “What is the difference between a “renewed” Anglo-Catholic and a “Low Churchman?” The “renewed” Anglo-Catholic knows why he doesn’t do the things that the Low Churchman won’t do.

Maybe someone should write an article: Why I am NO LONGER an Anglo-Catholic!. And, yes Mr Goings, that’s why I am an Traditional Anglopapist.


Comments Off on Terminology: A rose by any other name …

Filed under Personal

Comments are closed.