This is part of a conversation about the Baptismal Rite in Divine Worship: Occasional Services. Original poster inquired about finding a pdf of same, and somehow the Book of Divine Worship rite got into the conversation, and Leading Expert John Covert jumped in to point out that the BDW rite was suppressed, and this led into a discussion about the formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” which was used in BDW but explicitly forbidden the DW Baptismal Rite, although “Holy Ghost” is used elsewhere in DW. This as you can see then led to carping.Click on the image below for a larger copy.
And anyhow, "an Anglican considering crossing the Tiber should have no obstacles put in his way other than the basic necessities of the Faith. . ." And I assume that the "basic necessities of the faith" are those that the Anglicans determine to be "patrimonial". My correspondent says the thread drifts into the usual wails and moans about OF Lectionary and other aspects of contemporary Catholic liturgical practice parachuted into DW despite lack of any connection to “Patrimony.”
So if these Anglicans are being treated unjustly by Rome, why not go back to Canterbury, where things are clearly patrimonial, and they keep all the basic necessities of the faith? Again, the subtext of this whole discussion is that Rome has got it wrong. There are multitudes of Christian options for those who feel Rome has got it wrong. Heck, if none of them suits this bunch, why don't they start a new one?
And it's hard to avoid the impression that these folks are angry.
