The Affirmation of Saint Louis (1977)

Please visit this new web log and register your reaffirmation of orthodox catholic Anglicanism as expressed by the Affirmation of Saint Louis!

God bless you!

A Blessed Christ-Mass!

A blessed and happy Christ-Mass to all!

Please be assured of my prayers for every soul that reads this web log. Thank you all for making the year of grace 2009 such a delightful year in which to blog.

May the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary, our Incarnate God and new-born King, fill you all with joy and pour out His abundant blessings upon you as we celebrate the great Christ-Mass solemnity.

And remember, let us keep the MASS in Christmas...

God bless you!

The Anglican Sacramental System

Dear N.,

You raise an excellent point and one which we Anglo-Catholics always need carefully to consider - which is that we do not have any difference with either the Papal Communion or the Eastern Orthodox regarding the essential nature and substance of the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church, contrary to what Mr George Will asserts in his article. There has always seemed to be some confusion and misunderstanding about this fact on both the Roman and Anglican sides of the debate. Our differences with Rome regarding the Seven Sacraments are almost entirely disciplinary, and not dogmatic, in origin. You are right - we do not in any essential way disagree with the Tradition of the Undivided Church on the Sacraments, a Tradition that both Catholic Churches, Roman and Anglican, share. Our theological language of expression and elucidation may differ, but we possess in common the supernatural economy of grace that is the sacramental life.

For example, we do not dogmatically impose the medieval scholastic Aristotelian theory of transubstantiation on the revealed mystery of the Real Objective Presence, although Rome does. We do believe in the Real Substantial Presence of Our Lord under the form of bread and wine in the Eucharist without attempting to explain how the Lord is substantially present. We affirm the Eucharistic Sacrifice, again without dogmatising about it, and in the same manner we accept Baptismal Regeneration, the Seal of the Spirit in Confirmation, the grace and ontological character of Ordination, the gift of Absolution, the unction of the Holy Ghost in Anointing of the sick and the indissoluble sacramental bond of Matrimony, all without imposing any more dogmatic teaching on them than that which is required by the Holy Scriptures and the Church of the First Millennium. Our differences with the Roman Communion lie in the disciplinary arena, in the purview of canon law and the administration of the sacraments.

Other examples are: that we allow married men to be ordained priests and bishops, and bishops and priests to marry after ordination. We extend Eucharistic hospitality to all the validly confirmed, not merely to those in communion with a particular apostolic See. We anoint the sick, those may have a serious and recurring illness, or even those with spiritual and emotional illnesses, and we do not restrict Unction to the critically ill or dying. We offer a true and plenary sacramental Absolution at Mass after general confession, not limiting the intention to confer sacramental absolution solely within the forum of auricular confession. We do not allow priests to celebrate Mass alone. We do not have legislated in canon law fasting requirements before Holy Communion. But then, in some ways, we are stricter than Roman Church in our discipline, too, for example, in that we canonically forbid the marriage of a baptised Christian to an unbaptised person. But these rules, important and vital as they are, are all ancillary and disciplinary in nature and do not touch the substance of the Sacramental System. Other Apostolic Churches have yet other systems and organisations of discipline in sacramental administration.

Some ill-informed persons, inside and outside of Anglicanism, claim orthodox Anglicans only believe in two sacraments, reading as they do Article of Religion XXV incorrectly, because the Church makes the necessary distinction between two dominical sacraments whose sacramental form and matter are instituted directly by Our Lord in the Holy Gospel and whose reception is generally necessary to salvation, Baptism and the Eucharist (BCP 581), and the five minor, lesser or ecclesiastical sacraments, which were instituted by God in the Old Covenant or at Creation and have their renewed New Testament sacramental form and matter in the order of divine grace from the Apostles by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These five lesser sacraments are true sacraments and true covenantal means of grace, genuine objective channels and gifts of grace, but are not necessary for the salvation of all people. In truth, formal Roman Cathoic theology makes this indispensable distinction (in specie as opposed in genere) in the sacramental order, but some Roman Catholics are unaware of the bifurcation. Again, in categorising the sacraments in this way, we are simply following Holy and Apostolic Tradition.

II Corinthians 5.21

Our Lord Jesus Christ was 'made sin' or 'became sin' for us, because He assumed our sin in His own soul and body on the Cross for our redemption: 'who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the Tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness' (I St Peter 2.24). On the Cross, there is a divine exchange in which Our Lord willingly takes on Himself our sin in satisfactory and real atonement, offering His life for our sake, that we may be joined to Him and in Him in his perfect and all-sufficient act of obedience, worship and love rendered to the Father: in turn, through Christ our Priest and Mediator, we are given the righteousness of Christ as real gift, which is not merely imputed to us for Christ's sake, but is imparted and infused in us by divine grace, especially through the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.

Christ, the immaculate and all-sinless One (Hebrews 4.15), the Lamb without spot or blemish (I St Peter 1.19), offers Himself for us and offers us in Himself to His Father in self-oblation, the unique self-donation of His perfect will united in love to the Father's will. Through Christ we have access to the Father through the one Spirit (Ephesians 2.18).

We 'put on Christ' as God's own purchased possession, His children, in Baptism (Galatians 3) and Holy Communion (I Corinthians 10.16-17) and made one with Him, that He may dwell in us and we in Him (St John 6.53-58). The Person and Work, and the merits and atonement, of Our Lord are conveyed and applied to us through the Sacramental System of the Church. In Christ, we become the righteousness of God, that is, we are made right with and acceptable to God through the merits and perfect righteousness of Our Lord. Our justification in Christ is a free gift of unearned and undeserved grace, the infused energy of the Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature (II St Peter 1.4), partakers of the life and communion of the Holy Trinity, and are adopted as children of God and sons of grace through the Holy Spirit and the divine sonship of Jesus Christ (Romans 8.1-17). We become filii in Filio, sons in the Son. We become the Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12) through union with Christ's Body - offered on the Cross, glorified in the Resurrection and Ascension, present in the Sacraments, and extended in the Church.

The Orthodox Study Bible puts it this way:

How was Christ made to be sin for us? He, the incarnate Son of God, voluntarily assumed the consequences of our sin — corruption and death — without sinning Himself. And He submitted to unjust suffering because of the sinful passions of men and of angels. This means salvation is far more than forgiveness of sins. It is new life: our reconciliation to God (vv. 18-20) and our becoming new creatures (v. 17), participants in the very righteousness of God (v. 21). This means our salvation is not just juridical, (the static, legal pronouncement of a judge), but personal and relational (the dynamic, sacrificial love of a father for his child).

Consecration of Archbishop Matthew Parker

Today is exactly the 450th Anniversary of the consecration of His Grace Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury, at 6am on Sunday 17th December 1559 in the chapel of Lambeth Palace in London. This consecration gave rise to the post-reformation Anglican hierarchy, and every Anglican bishop, priest and deacon alive today traces his Holy Orders to this act in which the Apostolic Succession was secured, preserved and transmitted for the Anglican part of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The consecrating bishops were William Barlow, Bishop of Bath and Wells, John Scory, Bishop of Chichester, Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter, and John Hodgkins, Bishop Suffragan of Bedford. Bishop Barlow and Bishop Hodgkins had been consecrated according to the Latin Sarum Pontifical; Bishop Scory and Bishop Coverdale had been consecrated according to the Edwardine Anglican Ordinal of 1550. All four recited the ancient form of consecration, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, at the laying on hands. Through them and their sacramental action, the Apostolic Ministry was assured for the Church of England and her daughter Churches for posterity.

Let us thank Our Blessed Lord for the inestimable benefit of our Anglican heritage and for the divine gift of Apostolic Orders in the Anglican succession!

Photographs of an 'Anglican Patrimony'

The Very Reverend Craig Edward Young SSC - RIP

Of your Christian charity, pray for the repose of the priestly soul of Father Craig Young SSC, formerly Rector of the Church of the Epiphany, Columbia, South Carolina, who entered eternal life yesterday, 14th December 2009.

He was a dear friend, a truly excellent priest and an absolute stalwart of the Anglican and Catholic Faith. His life was utterly devoted to the Catholic Tradition of the Anglican Church. 'No desertion, no surrender' is his everlasting testimony.

Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon him.

'High Church'

By Father A. Appleton Packard, OHC, 1951.

'MY FAMILY and I were always "low to medium" Churchmen. But when Christ Church became "high" we moved to another parish.' A woman told me that not long ago. It is typical of the business of 'low and high Church' which mystifies outsiders and insiders within the Anglican Church. I have been asked: 'Are there two Anglican Churches in America, the high and the low?' Some people used to say that the Protestant Episcopal Church was 'the High branch' of the Methodist Episcopal! In this paper we present what 'High Church' really means, give something of its history, with the opposite 'Low Church.' Then we consider the degeneration to which a fine term has arrived, and challenge the position many take that these High Church practices are innovations in the Anglican Communion of which the American Church is part. But let me emphasise strongly that Low and High are both fundamentally at unity within Anglicanism. There is only truly one genuine Anglicanism, no matter what differences appear among its parishes.

HOW did 'High Church' originate? Back of 'high Church' lay a trio of nicknames dealing with 'flying!' 'High-flyer,' 'High-flying', or 'High-flown' Churchmen characterised persons and groups within our Mother Church of England in the last quarter of the seventeenth and first of the eighteenth centuries. Read it in the history of that period and see what was going on. In 1680 the earliest reference is to English clergy who held deep-seated loyalty to Crown and Church. Someone depicted 'the honest Divines (clerics) of the Church of England who for their Conscience and Obedience are Branded for High-Flyers.' Partisan lines were drawn by the next year so low men called their opponents 'tories, . . . high-flown churchmen.' These Churchmen were guilty of strong opinions and feelings supporting claims of authority in Church and State. A 'high-flyer or high-flier' had lofty or 'high-flown' notions on questions of government, especially church government. In the last year of the 1600s an opponent said 'the High-Flyers talk and act as if they thought the Kingdom of God was nothing else but Circumstance and Ceremony.' That sounds like a modern gibe. Such accusers forget that care for outward things is essential for upholding State and Church as God's instruments. In religion, a high valuation is set upon everything dealing with the approach to the Divine Majesty. A good answer came in 1718: 'I am afraid Saint Peter and Saint Paul will scarce escape being censured for Tories and High-Flyers.' Conversions from lower to higher Churchmanship were steady. In 1814 a man 'from a sullen sectarian . . . turned a flaming highflyer for the "supreme dominion of the Church."' As late as 1897 a distinguished writer in England remarked upon the 'great mortification to the high-flying Anglican who cannot bring himself to believe that there can be two Churches within the realm at one and the same time.' Only too true. This double word 'high-flying' was used up to the end of Victoria's reign.

Soon after 'high-flyer' appeared, human nature being what it is, as it is more natural to use one word in popular speech where two are correct (as in Roman Catholic), 'fly' dropped out, and 'high' remained as equal in meaning. We may define the High Churchman as a member of the Anglican Communion throughout the world holding opinions which give a high place to the authority of the Episcopate, Priesthood and Sacraments. Generally he emphasises those points of doctrine, discipline, ritual and ceremonial by which the Anglican Church is distinct from protestantism such as Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries it meant those who believed that Episcopacy — governing by Bishops of Apostolic Succession — is of the law of God. They opposed any compromise with protestantism on differences in Church government. And High Church in religion was practically the same then as Tory —royalist conservative in politics. At first a hostile nickname, after the later invention of opposite 'Low Churchman,' it began to be accepted for its own sake.

Apparently High Church was taken from 'High Churchman,' the personal emphasis being first in time. A writer of 1744 dealt with 'those of the Clergy who began now (1700-1702) to be called the High-Church (party), set up a complaint all over England of the want of Convocations.' This refers to the government's suppression of the ancient law-making bodies of the Church which were silenced for a century and a half. A Church historian wrote of 'those men who began now (1704) to be called the high church party' — a couple of years one way or the other made no difference. A bold spirit of 1704 recorded: 'I venture, for it's a Venture at this Time, to own the name of an High-Church-Man. No man thinks it a Disparagement to be High, that is Zealous, in any good thing.' Add this of 1708: 'A High-Church Clergyman is a Holy Man in his Conversation' — praise indeed! By 1710 it was asserted: 'Several of the High Church are for a Union between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.' A decade later Italy was named 'that Seat of High-Churchship'(!). Our Anglican Bishops at Lambeth in 1920 reminded us that there could be no Church unity without the Roman Church of the West. While High or Catholic-minded Churchmen in Anglicanism always stress what is held in common with Rome (and succeed year by year in breaking down blind prejudice against her), they claim that this great Church of ours is fully Catholic in and of itself. She too is universal, holding identical Faith, Ministry, Sacraments and Tradition with Roman Catholics. Yet we hold them without the additions and distortions they sanction.

Since 1833, when British clergy led by John Keble began the Oxford Movement at that University (not to be confused with Buchmanite Oxford Groups), the name High Church was used of this Catholic Revival within the Anglican Church. J. H. Newman and E. B. Pusey were its leaders. It was dubbed Puseyism, and often Tractarianism because of ninety famous tracts spread widely to propagate its principles. The opinions of newer High Churchmen were close to those of the earlier men of the same nickname, although closer to the pre-reformation Church in ceremonial observances. They have long since grown away from conservative loyalty to royalty and outmoded political views. Archbishop Tait of Canterbury wrote in 1882: '. . . powerfully had the early teaching of Newman represented English High Churchmanship as the best barrier against the Church of Rome.' In 1845 Newman did go to Rome, and a trickle of others have done so; nevertheless an equal if not greater group join us from there. The true position of this part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as Catholic but not Roman is the strongest one in Christendom.

II

What about 'Low Church?' This means an Anglican Churchman holding opinions giving a low place to the authority of Episcopate, Priesthood, Sacraments and Church organisation. The word was invented as opposing 'High Churchman,' and came into use during the early part of the eighteenth century as equal to Latitudinarianism. This mouth-filling word meant wide latitudes in religious belief. A writer of 1708 'shows the first rise of that party which were afterwards called Latitudinarians, and are at this day our Low-Churchmen.' Later it fell into disuse, but was revived in the 1800s when High Churchmen obtained new currency as applied to those of the Oxford Movement. Low Churchman has usually been equivalent to Evangelical — emphasis on the saving Gospel of Christ — and was used but rarely of Broad Churchmen. A common quip ran: 'Low Church lazy; Broad Church hazy; High Church crazy.' Many would prefer to be crazy about or in love with Our Lord and everything His Church stands for, than be guilty of laziness in thought and activity, or haziness in doctrine and devotion!

'Having the Imputation of Fanaticism and Low-Church fixt upon them' was a description of 1702. Daniel Defoe of Robinson Crusoe fame remarked in 1703: 'We have had it Printed with an Assurance I have wondered at, That the moderate Members of the Church of England, call'd Low Church Men, are worse than the Dissenters.' Low Churchmen have been the Church's left-wingers, the High being in middle and on right, who held out hands to protestantism as High Churchmen did to Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. A Bishop noted in 1715: 'All of the clergy that treated the Dissenters with temper and moderation . . . were called Low Churchmen.' In 1704 someone wrote: 'They, the Low-Church, profess themselves ready to joyn with the Dissenters in Confederacy against the High-Church.' Yet in 1710 Joseph Addison declared: 'The Terms High-Church and Low-Church, as commonly used, do not so much denote a Principle, as they distinguish a Party.' Few deserved a remark the same year: 'He ... is known to be so wretched a low Churchman, as to dispute all the Articles of the Christian Faith.' In a satire of 1715 a supposed Frenchwoman Mrs. Centlivre fears: 'If dese plaguey Low-Church get de Day, — dey vill make it Treason for any one to send der Children to France.' A Continental tour education was to be denied by those afraid of infection from Romanism. Even in 1841 the Earl of Shaftesbury shows that 'The Low Church, as they are called, will believe and will preach too, that Popery is encouraged and promoted.'

Low Churchmanship is inclined to be fearful with an inferiority complex, claiming High Churchmen are selling us out to the Pope. It has never been true. Instead, the growingly healthy spiritual condition of the nearly 40,000,000 Anglicans in our eleven widespread Churches is due, under God, to the truths emphasized by old 'high and dry' Churchmen. These were succeeded in the last century by the newer ones whose zeal and love reawakened Anglicanism to the glories of her Apostolic and Catholic —not narrowly Roman — heritage. The conviction of this paper is that Low Churchmanship is an undeveloped Churchmanship. Most of the Low Churchman's dislikes of High Church can be removed by explanation, reading, and the converted lives of those thousands in the Anglican Church who take her seriously as the best current exponent of Christianity.

Yet the Catholic-minded Churchman must balance in his thinking and observances the Evangelical Good News of the Cross of mankind's Saviour, and personal devotion to Him — all within the Body of Christ, His Church. It is far more than a matter of names. It is a question of objective truth. This is advancing. More Churchpeople every year thank God that from a lower perspective they have responded to the call to go up higher into nearer contact with Jesus Christ by all the spiritual opportunities available in this Church and her treasured Book of Common Prayer.

III

Having seen a bit of the history and meaning of 'high and low Church', we should recognise that a noble term High Church has degenerated in most quarters into nonsense. When asked: 'What does High Church mean?' a good if facetious answer is: 'Anything that we are not used to at our parish.' Ceremonial is often adopted by well-meaning parsons and parishioners for no theological reasons. The absence or presence of ceremonial — externals of worship — is not always the fruit of theological understanding. Frequently it results from ignorance.

There are many 'local rites' which do not make sense, are out of proportion, and possess no liturgical basis in authorised and widely-accepted standards of public worship. You find them everywhere. I do not plead for uniformity, but for omitting wonderful oddities which become harmful by drawing attention to molehills instead of mountains, causing concentration on minor matters where major ones need constant emphasis. Look at the solemnities concerning money collections in Anglican Churches. That is one place where simplicity could be inculcated. There is no rhyme or reason to them. To this 'high church' has descended. The essence of the word, as applied unthinkingly to cover these 'processionals' and so on, means no more nor less than what one is brought up to. If I am not accustomed to candles on the altar, two are 'high.' If two was my limit, six are 'sky-high.' I challenge any accusation that these are minute matters with which we should be ashamed to deal. For they, not basic, true doctrines, occupy most people's minds in our churches to the driving out of really important affairs.

We in the Order of the Holy Cross are frank to admit that we emphasize the High rather than Low side. But what we and any real High Churchman should be concerned with, is the welfare of the whole Church, not of any part or party within it. To overemphasise just what distinguishes you from your ecclesiastical neighbour is to run the danger of developing a sectarian attitude. Catholicism itself means wholeness, universality. Let us pray, think, work, in terms of our common Faith, all of it, our common Worship, all of it, and our common Love as members of the whole Body of the whole Christ.

The real High Churchman is one who has tremendous personal devotion to Our Lord through His own Catholic and Apostolic Church of which Anglicanism is an integral part. What makes many of us sick and tired is the Episcopalian who loves colours, incense, lights, crossings, vestments, 'that beautiful service,' yet has no appreciation of the necessity for discipline. The right sense of proportion is illustrated by a dear old man of low upbringing making a careful, humble Confession, then asking the confessor to give him advice on using the sign of the cross! This priest gladly reassured him about not being 'ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified' by this outward symbol of our Salvation. That is the true emphasis. Most Anglicans are inclined to start from the outside in, from lesser to greater. Take care of your penitence in Confession. Prepare carefully before and give humble thanks after Holy Communion. Make fasting Communions. Observe the Prayer Book fasting and abstinence days. Worship regularly at least Sunday by Sunday, 'on the Lord's Day, in the Lord's House, at the Lord's Service' — Holy Communion. The Book of Common Prayer has all the essentials there from High Mass to the Seven Sacraments. Study, know, use it.

One more thing. That Prayer Book on its title page refers to the Church's 'rites and ceremonies.' This enables us to correct a misnomer. Beyond being named Puseyites, Tractarians, Romanisers, — 'Ritualist' has often been flung at High Churchmen. 'Ceremonialist' is what was meant. As Webster's Collegiate Dictionary puts it: 'A rite is a prescribed form of conducting a ceremony especially a religious one; a ritual for a religious service.' This means the printed authorised form.

Ritual is a form of conducting worship; ceremonial a code of ceremonies observed, or a book containing ceremonial forms. Ritual may in the plural stand for a ceremonial act, as performing the last rites. Properly a ritualist is one attached to, skilled in, an advocate of, ritual. Ceremonial applies only to things, ceremonies to persons and things. Ceremonies are the series of acts, often symbolical, prescribed by the rite, namely the authority, custom, law in these fields. For example, in Confirmation, the Book of Common Prayer describes this sacramental rite. The ceremonies include the actions of the ministers and people. Let us distinguish correctly between the two. After all, the Prayer Book does.

IV

One of the best histories of the Church of England is by H. O. Wakeman. In his chapter The Ascendancy of Latitudinarianism (see translation above), he tells how in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries 'lethargy, like a malarious fog, crept up the body of the Church and laid its cold hand upon her heart.' Low and Broad Churchmen were in power. After those decades of indifferent Churchmanship, the 'low' cries out: 'Why these innovations the new Rector makes? Why imitate the Roman Catholics — can't we be true to ourselves? Hasn't something new been added? Didn't we get along well without them for four hundred years since the glorious reformation, when Roman corruptions and Papal superstitions were thrown out by enlightened protestants?'

The real High Churchman replies: 'Innovations? But — are they?' A very extreme protestant of the nineteenth century, the Rev'd Dr J. E. Riddle, provides ammunition to spike the guns of his fellow Low Churchmen. Is it Prayers for the Dead? American experiences in two World Wars softened thousands of hearts into gladly praying for the souls of loved ones. The late Bishop Brown of 'low' Virginia was responsible for the effective conclusion of the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church in the Eucharist, asking God 'to grant them (the faithful departed) continual growth in Thy love and service.' Dr. Riddle in his Manual of Christian Antiquities objects strenuously to such prayers, but acknowledges in the same breath that they have been a Christian custom for seventeen hundred years, and even earlier. Is it the Sign of the Cross? He admits: 'The practice of marking the body with the sign of the cross at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper is unquestionably one of the most remote antiquity in the Christian Church. It has generally been supposed to be of Apostolic origin.' Innovated — when nineteen hundred years' use sanctifies it? Is it Daily Celebration of the Holy Communion? See the directions of the Prayer Book. While in the 1700s it was celebrated only three or four times a year, we could do much better than at present. I was in a parish on Epiphany where no Mass was planned.

Hear Dr. Riddle again: 'A daily Celebration seems to have been recommended, and to a certain extent practised, in the ancient Church. It is probably to this that allusion is made in Acts 2.42-46.' Get out your New Testament and look up these passages. Is it Elevation of the Host? 'A practice of this kind,' our low Church author states, 'seems to have existed in the Eastern Churches as early perhaps as the fourth century.' Is it Incense? Riddle tells us: 'Its use in worship was mentioned by Saint Hippolytus who died in 230, Saint Ephrem Syrus (d. 374), Saint Basil the Great (d. 379), and Saint Ambrose of Milan (d. 397), as in use during and before their time.' Is it Vestments? Riddle quotes Eusebius and Epiphanius, fourth century Church historians, about Apostolic vestments. He adds: 'It can hardly be supposed that ministers of the different degrees or orders in the hierarchy which existed in the second and third centuries were not distinguished by different vestments in the discharge of their offices in the congregation.' Twelve to eighteen hundred years old! Innovations! The real innovators are the so-called reformers who deny the ancient doctrines and usages of Christ's Church.

'High-flier, High-Churchman, Puseyite, Tractarian, Ritualist, Romaniser, Anglo-Catholic' — all these names have been used. But anyone who is of real significance receives a lot of nicknames and still lives to tell the tale. Look at the numerous names for the Blessed Sacramental Feast: Holy Communion, Holy Eucharist, Mass, and so on. The service most important to Christian worship, with all its inclusive power, draws them like a magnet. I dare compare it with millions who for generations in Anglicanism are numbered among those who have stood stiffly for the whole Faith for the whole world. It is one thing to admit intellectual acceptance of that Apostolic Faith. It is another — and much harder — to take it out of the study into missions, slums, foreign parts, and over the earth. It is time that we became increasingly loyal to the entire Truth of Christ in His Church for which fully-developed Anglicanism stands. Let us not be afraid of name-calling, ridicule, misunderstanding. Catholicism is always costly, disciplinary, sacrificial, ever-loving.

The present (1951) Archbishop of Canterbury, leading prelate of our Communion, proclaims with no uncertain voice regarding Anglicans: 'We have no doctrine of our own. We only possess the Catholic doctrines of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock.' To this, the real, converted high churchman shouts a fervid 'Amen.' And he dares to practise, in discipline, devotion, and reverent rites and ceremonies, the doctrines he believes with all that is in him.

Mailli Katherine Lillian Jones

My dear friends:

Praised be Jesus Christ!

On 6th December 2009, the Second Sunday in Advent and the Feast of Saint Nicholas, at 2.43pm in beautiful cool Dunwoody, Georgia, my beloved wife Megan gave birth to a healthy beautiful baby girl, 6 pounds 14 ounces, 19 and one-half inches long.

Our daughter has been given the name Mailli Katherine Lillian Jones. 'Mailli' is a Cornish variant for 'Mary', the Name of Our Blessed Lady, Mother of God, in whose honour we have named her and to whose protection and intercession we commend her. Mailli's maternal great-grandfather's family is from Delabole, Cornwall, so we have chosen to celebrate our Cornish heritage and the ancient Catholic Faith of the Cornish people. Katherine is her mother's middle name, and Lillian is the name of my wonderful 91 year old grandmother. We praise and thank Almighty God for His mercy and grace in providing a safe and joyful delivery for Megan and Mailli. Please be assured of our deepest and most profound gratitude for your prayers, and of our prayers for you all.

May the Lord bless and keep you!

Chad+