A word to the readers. . .

I'm very happy that this blog has been well received by Anglicans from a variety of jurisdictions (including orthodox priests within traditionalist dioceses in the once Episcopal Church in these United States, now THE Episcopal Church, soon to be Something Else Entirely). It has always been meant as a "clearing house," as it were, for good old fashioned High Church theology.`But as Canon Tallis pointed out in one of his replies, the need arises, from time to time, to dust off the old authors of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and reply to the claims of the Church of Rome, who although a sister in Christ, is a sister that makes claims that we cannot abide by. Every Anglican blog I've read (and every traditionalist Anglican I know) will be, at one point or another, confronted with the Roman claims. Thus, the need for the old--and very good--replies to the old arguments. These are not meant to be anti-Rome for the sake of anti-Romanism. They are meant to honestly present our Anglican difficulties with the historical and theological claims of the Roman Church and to defend the traditional Anglican positions as they were solidified during the Reformation and Restoration periods. My reasoning for saying all of this to elaborate my original intent of this blog, which is a positive one and not a negative one.

(for those readers living in England, please imagine all posts being read with the high and proper British accent commonly heard in the old broadcasts from the BBC)