I haven’t had time to read it in great depth, but it has some interesting portions for sure.
Deborah’s transition, in solidarity with most of the community in which she worshipped, involved a rupture between her “false” Catholicism and her “true” Catholicism. She and they will have to live with that break in their spiritual experience. It is not for me to judge them or any of the other Anglicans who followed the Anglicanorum coetibus trajectory. However, many of us reject this “break” as harmful and unnecessary. Deborah has suffered, as she told me and expressed publicly on her blog. It was necessary for her, but it is not a convincing argument for the ACC to embark on a path in which it has never shown the slightest interest.
No, I would not say I experienced a rupture, but a development of doctrine. I would say I experienced a continuity into a deeper Catholicism, one that includes communion with the Bishop of Rome and bishops in communion with him as a key part.
But I do not see my previous view of myself as “Catholic” as false, just not complete, or not-fully-consistent with the Catholic Church’s definition. As a Continuing Anglican I certainly had many elements of the Catholic faith that sadly I find missing among many contemporary cradle Catholics in the west. But having a Catholic faith without belonging to the Catholic Church no longer seemed to me an option.
That does not mean I look with scorn on my Continuing Anglican past, nor on my Baptist past. I learned a lot and am grateful for all the teaching and nourishment I received.
After all, it is what has led me to this point and for that I’m thankful.
And by the way, commentators—stop bashing each other and practice civility here or I’ll not publish your comments.
Fr. Anthony seems to default to a binary/black vs. white/ either/or thinking at times.