[AnAmericanMother]

I think Rev. Kew's analysis of Roman theology (particularly the role of the papacy in establishing doctrine) is superficial as well as heavily colored by the anti-Roman thought of the era of Cardinal Newman . . . as the thought of many Englishmen is. They drew it in with their mothers' milk and The Water Babies. (The author of that charming children's book put all sorts of anti-Roman stuff into it just in passing. He was also Cardinal Newman's most virulent (and somewhat underhanded) attacker in the public press.)

Interesting that he doesn't see that the alternative to a strong central authority that does NOT give in easily to "development" (just another word for revisionism) is just the sort of free-form "the Holy Spirit doing a new work" that has caused the last 30 years of ECUSA revisionism in every area of doctrine and tradition, culminating in the consecration of Vicki Gene through an end run around the usual channels and defiance of the non-authority authority of Canterbury and Lambeth.

I don't see the problem as he does, but I bet I was a lot "higher" than he is.

I am his Majesty's dog at Kew.
Pray, good sir, whose dog are you?

[Romulus]

I am his Highness' dog at Kew.
Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?

A couplet penned by a Catholic. By a Pope, in fact.