To: sionnsar
FWIW that kind of stuff never cut much ice with me. I, truly, was the only person I ever knew who presided at a Eucharist which was celebrated entirely according to the 1928 BCP without any alteration or revision of any kind.
The most ferocious proponent of the 1928 Prayer Book known to me personally would have been horrified if she saw real live, sho' 'nuff 1928 worship.
It's all moot for me now anyway. Though I catch myself longing for the leeks, garlics, and fleshpots of Egypt, I know this darned mannah is the real deal, if it lacks something in culinary imagination. Better the bitter draught which heals than the sweet which deludes.
3 posted on
09/22/2005 6:41:14 PM PDT by
Mad Dawg
(Allahu Fubar! (with apologies to Sheik Yerbouty))
To: Mad Dawg
FWIW that kind of stuff never cut much ice with me. I, truly, was the only person I ever knew who presided at a Eucharist which was celebrated entirely according to the 1928 BCP without any alteration or revision of any kind. I don't think I understand...
4 posted on
09/22/2005 7:22:19 PM PDT by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azadi)
To: Mad Dawg
Well, our local Anglo-Catholic church is still using the 1559 (1557?) BCP- you don't get much more authentic than that.
5 posted on
09/22/2005 8:28:20 PM PDT by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
To: Mad Dawg
The most ferocious proponent of the 1928 Prayer Book known to me personally would have been horrified if she saw real live, sho' 'nuff 1928 worship.
Could you explain this a little? We use the 1928 BCP. Do you believe that people in 1928 did things differently or that there is an "authentic" way of using the 1928 BCP that the Continuing Churches have missed?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson