Check out this post: watch the clip, read the text.
Just a reminder, CNBC has a lot of money and industry knowledge. They don’t invite flakes to speak unless they plan on ridiculing them afterward.
There recently been a call for a new “Marshall Plan” to rebuild a less oil-dependent economy and some Brits have put out a Green New Deal. I haven’t read ’em yet so can’t comment with any intelligence. Broadly though, I’m no watermelon–green on the outside, pink in the middle–I still think a primarily capitalist market is the best game going. However, my understanding is that the “invisible hand” of the market is not fundamentally a stupid hand. That is, market dynamics and a strong capitalist system are rooted in the notion of informed concerned participants who encourage market change by how, when, and where they spend their money. The complexities of international business in the age of multinational corporations and conglomerates makes it a hell of a lot harder to be an informed consumer. I’ll acknowledge the difficulty, but that it no way gets us off the hook.
From my perspective let me make this really simple:
One of the great benefits of our move is that we get the chance to purge some of the accumulated mass of crap that we have for no particular reason. I’ll admit this pains me as I have pack-rat tendencies, but a simpler, cleaner, clearer life is one of the ways that we hear the Gospel calling us to embody ourselves in the world.
A trial liturgy from the Postulant which should be included in the BOS at next General Convention…
More good stuff from Third Mill Catholic. This time, it’s a response to Fr. Al Kimel (formerly known as The Pontificator).
The question at hand is the vexatious one of what it means to be catholic. Dr. Dunlap rightly argues that to play with Rome’s definition is to lose the game before it begins. Rather, we should seek and discuss the Anglican definition. And I agree with his:
Romanism and Byzantinism both make claims of ecclesial ultimacy. But
their respective claims are mutually exclusive, as the former insists
on papal supremacy and the latter on the received faith of the
ecumenical councils. Thus, despite whatever superficial similarities
Rome and Byzantium may have, they are different ways of understanding
what it means to be catholic. In contrast, Anglicanism has never made a
claim of ecclesial ultimacy, and so defines itself not as the Catholic Church, but rather as a catholic church, and thus recognizes the other two communions as legitimate branches of “the
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Unlike Fr. Kimel, I see
this as Anglicanism’s greatest strength, not its weakness. And if it
survives the present struggles, then it will only be that much stronger.
see, believe it or not, I still believe in “common prayer catholicity,”
which, contrary to Al Kimel’s reductionism above, is more than just the
formal retention of ancient creeds and apostolic orders. Neither is my
position merely a “strategy,” failed or otherwise, for the orthodox to
stay put in TEC/Anglican Communion. I don’t need a reason or a strategy
to stay in TEC. Indeed, the burden of proof is STILL on those who
insist that I should leave! Rather Anglicanism is a way of being
catholic, or living into catholicity, that has proven itself very
effective and extremely resilient over the last nearly 500 years of
this independent Anglican experiment. I still believe that Anglicanism
is a movement of God. I may be wrong. But why should I give up on it
Our catholicity is not an enforced catholicity then, rather, it is a formed catholicity, formed by attentively immersing ourselves in the Western/Anglican liturgical way of life.
…with a some update and a bleg. And no, I haven’t yet begin to wade through my back feeds so more may be coming later as I sort out what all’s gone on since I left…
- We got a place. We like it. M, as many of you know personally, is both wise and beautiful. At the moment, though, I’m doubting her sanity. She is planning for us to move in on August 1st. As in, the one 11 days from now… But–the girls are with the grandparents so we’ll be in a packing frenzy. Expect posting to be light…
- I did see that Christopher is setting up a new blog to talk about a rule of life. I’ve been having a lot of thoughts about this, especially how it can be achieved in a busy…well, okay, chaotic…household with two preschoolers. I’ve got some solid ideas but nothing yet written. These will come later…
- Thanks for keeping an eye on the pointy-hats for me–they seem not to have done anything too silly. Yet…
On now to the bleg. This is for those who use the 1662 BCP or are familiar with its use particularly in the English Prayerbook Catholic paradigm:
- Both the original 1662 lectionary and the 1922 update have quite a number of options in them. What patterns of use are favored–and why?
- All of the red-letter days are supplied with collects, readings etc. Black-letter days obviously don’t change the readings–but how are they observed, there being no Commons of Saints?
- The lectionary and kalender seem to indicate that 1st Vespers are not the custom of this prayer book. However, reading through the Rules to Order the Service, item 5 legislates it (“shall” be said) for all Sundays and red-letter days and item 6 leaves the option open. Is there a standard practice or much variability?
- Also, the Rules to Order the Service make much causal mention of “memorials”, which I take to be supplementary collects in the fashion of commemorations. Are there other directions on memorials that I’m somehow missing?
Of course, I’ll consult my older written sources: Directorum Anglicanum and the 1st edition of Ritual Notes on these but I’d like to here about current use as well… Thanks in advance!