Steve-O,

I had no idea you had crossed the Channel, so to speak. I always assumed you to be a Catholic . . . shows you how close I follow you guys.

So where are you heading? The Continuing Anglican Movement? CANA? AmiA? The Bosporus? Or are you waiting for the Common Cause bishops to forge a new Anglican church out of the shards of the broken TEC?

Or should we summon Cardinal Smithers again . . .

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/B16.jpg

OT but related: I performed for an Episcopal service in Tucson last w/e. Quite impressive, actually (I had never been to an Episcopal service before). The church organ was awesome, the Cantor quite good, and the choir wasn't exactly shabby either. The incense kind of freaked me out. I thought only Catholics and Orthodox churches used incense. I was favorably impressed, and the pastor (Do you call them pastors?) informed me that Lutherans and Episcopalians observe reciprocity with respect to communion, which I didn't know either.

I played brilliantly, of course.

Yo Steve-O, you might want to check and see if that bridge you crossed is a two-way one...

Mrs. P--Since Robbo's not around, I can crack wise on an injoke---I've saved a pic of the Vatican, the lovely Tiber flowing before it, with one of the bridges splendid in the morning light, to send to Robbo with the caption, "There are bridges, you know."

To answer your question and The Abbot's, I'm not really going anywhere. To paraphrase from a different context, I am where I am. I felt for a long time like an exile, than an expat, and now just where I am. That's what I've come to like about the BCP, that there is quite a bit of room for travellers with the right protection. Most oddly enough it would seem is that somebody's got to stay and keep the candles lit, which if you knew me more would be the oddest statement in the world, seemingly (I mean, what type of Anglican has a portrait of St. Thomas Moore in his office?). But I do believe this: The Creed doesn't modify or qualify universal with "Rome," but with "Holy". That doesn't mean Rome isn't Holy---far from it, indeed, far from it. But it does mean, to me at least, that Rome doesn't encompass and circumnavigate it, either--nothing human can. So here I stand.

It's quite obvious to me of a supreme degree of Holy Comedy that Robbo and I have been led with great difficulty and ultimately futile resistance on the same road but in seemingly opposite directions. There's a good reason for it, I'm absolutely sure of that. I just have no idea what it is.

So I'll be the first to confess I just don't know what's going on with the wider Anglican communion, or what should be going on, other than that I need to stand where I am, to listen with an open heart, and try to be open to the spirit of grace.

Maybe you guys just have a thing for bridges. :-)

Of the four marks of the Church, "holy" is certainly important. Where something is holy, truly God is present.

Of course, at the time of the council of Niceaea, "one" was a matter of simple fact -- there was only one church. Now it is a more difficult question -- there is one church, but the line between what is visibly the church and what is invisibly the church has become somewhat blurred. I look at the Orthodox and I see 99.99% Catholicism. I look at the creeds of the Anglican church and I see 95% Catholicism. The look at the Lutheran church and it's about the same. I look at the Presbyterian church and I see about 85% Catholicism. And then through the Methodists, Baptists, and so on. To me, all of these churches are unified, in a sense, by Baptism -- all of them are Christian, but where they differ, well, those differences have often been written in someone's blood. I meditate as to whether the separations in Christianity do not represent in the Mystical body of Christ the wounds he suffered on Earth; I think they must pain Him at least as much as those wounds did, to be sure.

My concern with the Anglican church is that there is a true split coming between those who can profess the creed simply and without any qualification or mental reservation; and those who view it all as nice tradition and window-dressing, but not possible accurate as true since we are all so modern and scientific. I guess the test I see for Anglicans of all stripes is this -- recite the Creed. If you can say it without fudging it, you belong in the Anglican world, but not in TEC. If you say it while believing something else than the plain sense of the words, you probably are headed doctrinally where TEC is headed (which is something like 75% Traditional Christianity, and 25% neo-pagan funk). If you recite it and it raises questions (what does light from light mean? what does True God from True God mean?), you need to research those questions and come up with answers.

My fear is that while you are currently comfortable where you are, Steve-O, the ground may be moving beneath your feet. There are Bishops leaving, and the differences are becoming real. I think like the Civil War, it will involve everyone in the Anglican communion before it is over.

Abbot--I would respectfully submit that I am where I am, which is both metaphorical as well as literal. I well grasp that there is a storm--trust me, I can feel it and see it more. Yet at the same time, I'll repeat my respect for the Quakers in this in their desire to maintain silence and listen and watch.

As for percentages, I didn't realize there was going to be math on this test.

Q: ...what type of Anglican has a portrait of St. Thomas More in his office?

A: A very naughty one. I like naughty Angilcans. i used to be one.

(Mr. More is Saint to the Catholics and Sir to the Anglicans.)

Well, then truly I'm a sect of One.

Where I'm trying to arrange the music of the eucharist to the tunes of British rockers Squeeze.

Hmmn...you can really confuse your flock of 1 by adding some Bob Marley and do :

Red, red wine in bed....

I'd certainly go.

I'm thinking you'd need to rework the lyrics, but certainly Mussels from the Shell works for the Entrance hymn, Tempted for a (sung) Confiteor, Cool for Cats for the Kyrie, Take Me I'm Yours for the Gloria, If I Didn't Love you for the Communion hymn, Is That Love for the post-Communion reflection, and probably Hourglass for the Recessional.

I won't begin to contemplate how Another Nail in My Heart would need to be reworked, as I value my mortal soul.

And where does Annie Get Your Gun come in? The Feast of St. Anne, perhaps?

If the U2charist exists, then certainly Messrs. Difford and Tillbrook could do a Mass; as I always considered them to be better songwriters than Bono.

But I draw the line at Billy Joel. For him who promotes a Billy Joel-based liturgy, I say, let him be anathema.