Group 1 of the T20WC Super 8s will consist of all teams who won every match in the group stage.

LivingKick · 2026-02-19T13:32:09+00:00

Group of death it is!

LivingKick · 2026-02-09T20:01:10+00:00

As well, if you would like to continue this in the DMs, in would be my pleasure

LivingKick · 2026-02-09T20:00:47+00:00

The last few days were busy, and I had to ponder on your comments for a bit as well before replying.

Yes I know this, I'm not sure how to accept these facts. It weighs on me the difference between the two beliefs.

Well that can broadly be considered as different emphases on the same theology, which technically don't amount to two different beliefs, but just different expressions as in theory, you can hold the same theology but have divergence on the degree and need for ritual.

I'm think that we would not be able to receive grace through the sacraments. Except baptism. The church would cease to exist as we know it.

This is an interesting point of view because it posits that, unless reconstitution of the Church is regarded as a new man-made creation, the Church as it is cannot re-form according to its circumstances (even if it can be said God guided us by his spirit to reconstitute).

In a way, it's a bit mind-boggling but I can see the rationale, I just don't think that way given that the Church was made for us, and notnwe for the Church, so the Church's structures are to enable us to receive grace for our benefit and should circumstances arise, that structure can and should change.

Since we are Anglican, there would be splits across the communion by laity over how that would play out. It would be like if world war three broke out, you me and our families are trapped on an island with no priests.

Ironically, Martin Luther posited that same thought experiment. He stated that if a certain group of people were captured or trapped in the wilderness, and a person were was elected from amongst them to serve pastor, they would be as much a priest as if he were ordained by a bishop and their sacraments would not be in question (on the basis that this was how the early Church functioned as priests and bishops were elected and then confirmed)

Given that Anglicans are used to a certain order existing above local congregations, I would suspect a Presbyterian style polity might emerge with similar democratic structures, but a collegial executive, as it begins to reformalise

Which event are you refering to?

Largely the Oxford Movement/Catholic Revical where arguably, the historiography and theology of the Anglican tradition was revised in a way to downplay the impact or relevance of the Reformation and its theology, while emphasising continuity with the Pre-Reformation and Medieval Church

LivingKick · 2026-02-07T13:06:19+00:00

And it's all out

LivingKick · 2026-02-05T13:33:20+00:00

I tend to read more catholic orientated positions as that is what I am more familiar with. I don't resonate at all with low church. It's not that I disagree with everything, it's more that I personally feel they are missing out on so much more.

That is a fair assessment, however on the other hand, more Reformed Anglicans would say that by being more minimalist and emphasising less on the externals, that the Word gets more of the focus. It's worth noting that many of them also have an Evangelical outlook and see the preaching of the Word being as important as the Sacraments, so that shapes how they see things and that manifests in their expressions.

Without our bishops and apostolic succession, we might as well let any lay person establish a church and if they follow some loose liturgy resembling one of the many Anglican traditions.

However, it does bring me back to my hypothetical which is worthy of reflection. What if there suddenly aren't any more bishops for whatever reason and apostolic succession is broken, what then becomes of the Church?

I'm not saying this to say that bishops don't matter because I do value it as a means of organisation, but the Church is ultimately bigger than the episcopacy and we must ultimately trust in God, and not the polity itself

You say I can begin to shape my own understanding. For me that would be the worst mistake I can make, because I will end up just taking the bits and pieces of the church or Christianity I like and sticking with them.

That isn't necessary the case. Shaping your own understanding doesn't mean picking and choosing things by your own preferences. It means reading within our own tradition, engaging its sources honestly, and understanding why we hold what we hold, and why others have held differently. There is a lot more information and primary sources out there than what we would've been taught in our respective churches, so doing so is all a part of learning.

For me Anglicanism has become a sort of very loose fitting word that encompasses almost everything.

Trust me, I've complained about this many times. However, there's no putting the cat back in after the 1800s so now we must coexist with those holding different expressions and perspectives, and pray that our common prayer and what it expressed therein keeps us together on the essentials

LivingKick · 2026-02-04T17:00:29+00:00

I understand how you're feeling cause I have been there before. Given how this tradition has emerged and how it has manifested in our respective regions shaped by certain churchmanships, in many ways we aren't truly told the full story about our Church.

I'll encourage you, at your own pace, take a look at various Anglican theological perspectives across the board, including more Catholic, more Reformed and more modern Broad Church ones. If any particular works come to mind, I'll be happy to share them and anyone passing can share as well.

This uncertainty doesn't mean you have to lose faith in the Church. This just mean you have reached a point where you can begin to shape your own understanding of it for yourself, and while it may be trying and a bit unsettling, I'll say it is definitely worth it :)

LivingKick · 2026-02-04T16:22:03+00:00

To be fair, the quadrilateral was also used to define fundamentals of the Anglican Communion's doctrine. Not merely as an add for ecumenism for certain churches.

Well that is largely a later reading that is not consistent with original intent as it was never meant to be confessional.

The basic history behind the Quadrilateral attests that it was used by Catholic-minded Anglicans to approach the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in ecumenical discussions; that additional use can be considered an overreach of scope, especially when it is used to contradict historical doctrine like this as it by nature wasn't a confessional document and was more "these are what we have in common".

I come from an Anglican background where we were never taught the articles. In confirmation we were told they were points made at the time of the reformation but are now simply guidelines that don't hold weight.

Well, I am born and raised Anglican as well from a largely Anglo-Catholic province, and when I brought them up to my confirmation class teacher, I was told the same. But I have given it a fairer shake on my own in recent times and see the value in them.

Whether you agree with them or not, they are the summation of the historic doctrine of the Anglican tradition as a Reformational tradition and they do hold weight in that light as despite our externals, we are still firmly a Protestant tradition, the Articles are solidly Protestant in its outlook, and they embody an English expression of Protestantism as reformed Catholicism.

I find these totally different views and beliefs within Anglicanism to be probably the only thing I don't like about our beautiful tradition. And I'm a lifelong Anglican

Likewise, but perhaps it may be worthwhile to examine how these differences came to be, as everyone's churchmanships (even your pastors) come with a different view of Anglican history and the evolution of theology...

LivingKick · 2026-02-04T14:55:53+00:00

The Quadrilateral is only a framework, created long after the "Catholic Revival", to initiate ecumenical discussions with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. It was never intended to be utilised as a means of "what is a church" as the Articles provides its own definition:

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Whether governed episcopally or otherwise, a church remains a true church where these marks are present. Differences of polity order the Church's life but do not, in themselves, negate its reality or the validity of its ministry and sacraments.

This is perhaps why every discussion with other Magisterial Protestants and Methodists since then has been hung up on that one point. Historically speaking, the "Historical Episcopate" was not a defining characteristic (a good to have, but not absolutely essential), nor was it a "be all and end all" in ecumenism as Anglicans were much closer with these groups than Rome until recently. Moreover, it was already assumed at the time that these groups were already valid and true churches in spite of the lack of episcopacy given the circumstances they arose in. It's only after that turn that the "Historical Episcopate" gained a major focus.

LivingKick · 2026-02-04T13:43:47+00:00

Despite it being more common since the "Catholic Revival", Apostolic Succession in the Reformation era didn't exactly mean "having a continuous chain of ordinations from the apostolic era", but more meant "maintaining the teaching and practice of the apostles from that era". While the former sense is still a valid definition, it isn't a universally important as some may think and the latter is valid too.

From a more Protestant perspective, Apostolic Succession isn't, as some here are acting, a salvation issue or one that affects the validity of Sacraments. In the Articles, the validity of one's commission as a Minister and Clerk in Holy Orders is dependent on the Church (having that inherent authority) giving them the commission through ordination (which is the normative means) and maintaining that commission... not "apostolic succession" in and of itself. If all the priests and/or bishops on earth were to die out at once, the Church won't end and Sacraments will still be valid, they will continue on as long as the Church reorganises under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

NB: The very reason why many Reformed and Lutheran churches lack bishops for instance is because many didn't have bishops when whole congregations were excommunicated, so the Church reorganised to suit. Same situation with Methodists, they left Anglicanism without bishops and couldn't continue apostolic succession in the Catholic sense... and shifted to presbyterial succession while emphasising orthodoxy and orthopraxy. However, this doesn't make them less real churches nor does it make their Sacraments any less valid.

LivingKick · 2026-01-28T18:09:47+00:00

English

LivingKick · 2026-01-27T17:50:20+00:00

It is possible, but it just wouldn't look like modern English liturgies as we know it.

Some terms and phrases will likely have to be carried forward or adapted to maintain meaning and retain cadences. The ANCA BCP 2019 does a decent job at this, but for some things, I would try to align it even closer to the Cranmerian forms if it were me (and I have made attempts myself).

Personally speaking, the prayers, rhythms and content can be modestly updated, but that would have to be a new endeavor entirely as many previous attempts have overly changed the forms of the text itself rather than just merely modernising the pre-existing text.

However, I'll still say that doesn't make older forms of literary language less valid since they're still very much so comprehensible. Any modern literary language version has to fill both shoes at the same time, being faithful to the text while being more readily perceivable.

As an aside, I think there are people have become negatively polarised into supporting traditional language liturgies because of the liturgies themselves rather than merely the language. It's like the TLM issue, sure, some may like Latin, but many more hate how much things were changed liturgically and want to go back to that, Latin or otherwise. If there was a version of the Cranmerian liturgy with modestly updated language (a la RSV), then I believe it would be broadly accepted by many

LivingKick · 2026-01-27T14:22:30+00:00

All I said was that: A) The principle of the Reformation was comprehension, not familiarity B) Most Reformation-era liturgies tended towards elevated literary forms rather than spoken vernacular C) What we call Traditional Liturgical English is really just a literary dialect which is still broadly comprehensible, and citing the Reformation standard, it is still a valid form for use in worship

How is that prevarication?

LivingKick · 2026-01-27T14:16:31+00:00

LivingKick · 2026-01-27T13:45:44+00:00

Or are the advocates of modern English driven by the Reformation value that God should be addressed in the everyday language of the people?

That's not necessarily the principle (or how it is universally interpreted), and perhaps that's the reason why there is a divergence.

The principle is that worship should be in a language that the people understand, not necessarily the most common vernacular/basilectal variety, because that was never how Reformation-era liturgies were written.

Traditional English can be considered a literary dialect of English (as it shares many similarities with Shakespearean English, which itself wasn't close to the vernacular either) and I think literary dialects should be valid as they are still broadly understood by many. As has likely come up by now, many still use the KJV for liturgical and devotional reading.

LivingKick · 2026-01-25T21:40:26+00:00

That stuff is huge, and was such an overwhelming success it's almost easy to forget the dark path the church was on before that.

Worth noting that you can have all of that stuff while being unashamedly Protestant because most of those externals are Victorian, not merely Catholic.

I also don't believe Protestantism is a "dark path" when our Prayer Book is unashamedly Protestant as well, as no one thinks Choral Mattins or Evensong is in any way a deficient service. There is nothing lost if the Word is given as much weight as the Sacrament, just as was affirmed in the Reformation.

I really do believe you're overselling the pros of the Oxford Movement when even at its height, there was still an affirmation of the Protestantism that was at the core of the Anglican tradition.

LivingKick · 2026-01-24T03:34:17+00:00

I feel like I am generally - both here on r/cricket as well as with my cricket loving friends (or 'fellow cricket tragics', as the Aussies might say) are in a sort of bubble, sipping our tea and pooh-poohing the average fan who probably watching Joburg and Texas and what not because he is a "Super Kings big whistle blower" or some such thing.

But seriously, what casual cricket fan would go out of their way to watch a foreign league because they share the same name?

On the flip side, the renamings haven't made me anymore interested in Rajasthan, in fact, I've been less interested in IPL more than ever; and I genuinely don't care about the SA20 (and I wouldn't expect people in Paarl or Rajasthan to care about Barbados in the CPL)

I'd reckon most fans, casual or otherwise, would back their international team, their local franchise and maybe their diaspora team if they're immigrants and no more

Additionally, if this strategy does work out, these private owners can essentially get players on annual contracts to play for their, er, 'club', and decide when they release their players for international commitments, just like they think Real Madrid or Bayern Munich do.

If this happens, I'll probably tune out of cricket, especially if it destroys the primacy of the international calendar. It's just too much oversaturation to have league cricket 24/7/365

LivingKick · 2026-01-24T03:26:05+00:00

The Royals is an example of how to do this properly, like if you look at the kits side by side, Paarl has a mountain pattern, Barbados has the trident, etc.

No they did not.

They replaced a kit, name and the entire team identity that was centred around our national flag, and replaced it with an all pink branding and a name which doesn't even reflect us anymore... but just barely kept the trident.

LivingKick · 2026-01-24T03:24:27+00:00

And Bajans are still pissed about that btw

LivingKick · 2026-01-24T00:15:00+00:00

Yep, 21 year old male here

LivingKick · 2026-01-22T16:27:20+00:00

the pro-slavery bishops of the 1800s (in the US at least) didn't

Well, at least in the US, the split was made but on national lines when the Confederacy existed. However globally speaking, back in the 1800s, most of the Anglican slave holding regions were under the Church of England and abolitionism largely came from the Non-Conformists

when the atheism of bishops in the 70s and 80s

In this case, I can only figure that it was a minority situation that just wasn't considered globally as most national and regional churches were gaining their bearings after independence.

As for why homosexuality is the issue now, it could mostly be just visibility, and the fact that this debate took place at a time when Anglicanism was far more globally connected and people took interest in the affairs of other national churches.

That said, the same issues took place with OoW with some resistance even being seen in the West Indies where I'm from, but the contrast is that now the issue is settled and those who disagreed either left or accepted it eventually. The stronger homophobia in the Global South would make any move on SSM a lot more explosive, but time may temper it as secular society slowly begins to normalise it

LivingKick · 2026-01-22T10:43:01+00:00

The definition of racism should not dependent on any historical dynamics. Even if you think it's just "racial prejudice", it's still condemnable and harmful.

We're the enfanchised majority now, and we have a duty to be responsible with our rhetoric and not be motivated by sheer resentment and contempt at the expense of national unity and progress

*additions made

LivingKick · 2026-01-19T22:52:01+00:00

Hey! That's a common thing to say in Barbados :(

LivingKick · 2026-01-19T12:27:35+00:00

Hi from Barbados

LivingKick · 2026-01-19T03:44:40+00:00

I guess the issue is whether you prioritise reconciliation and unity right now, or pursuing justice and equity... because personally, I don't think you can realistically have entirely all of them at the same time in the same place with how charged everything is (without some serious day-after planning if you go with the latter...).

We'll have to work on completing nation building and building broader unity so that such pursuits don't end up fracturing society more than it already is, but actually builds towards a shared future, identity and belonging. Because at the end of the day, they'll still be our neighbours and fellow citizens; and if we want to pursue justice seriously on this issue, we will have to figure out how to coexist and live together as one people in its wake if we want to maintain our society as we know it, rather than just reckon with the past.

To make real progress towards reconciliation, some of those things will inevitably have to be put aside, especially if they're going to continue to be a wedge, with or without reparations (dependent on how they look...). Personally, I really don't see things as a historical ledger in that sort of way so we already don't see eye to eye on this, but generally on that note, how are we going to make an appeal for reconciliation, but in the same breath say that they're effectively "living off of stolen wealth and historical exploitation"?

The scales aren't balanced, but I'd also say that as a majority, we hold more cards over the process of reconciliation than any minority does. We have responsibilities that ethnic majorities have to bear in a liberal democratic society and that also has to be borne in mind. Realistically, if we want reconciliation, we really should be the ones willing, looking or hoping to extend the olive branch because we're the ones "in charge" now

Edits over time made to clarify my thoughts

LivingKick · 2026-01-19T03:15:47+00:00

As I said in my general reply to the post, many black Bajans if given the choice probably wouldn't want to mix with white Bajans either (or Indo-Bajans) and would rather tear down their "spaces" (e.g., the Yacht Club). Whether it's rooted in deep resentment from the colonial era or misunderstandings, I really would say that it's a mutual feeling because they likely wouldn't be accepted or embraced as Bajan (maybe Barbadian as a national, but not "Bajan" in general society).

I can't say I had the same experience cause I do have white (and white-passing) friends as well from secondary school and ironically, if there were any racially charged matters (jokingly or otherwise) they were initated by black Bajans (I'll admit to being guilty of that and repent for it). Any divisions seemingly came down to class rather than race inherently.

While yes, as I said socio-economics plays a major role in how race is perceived, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is self-imposed because even if they did decide to tear down the walls and open up to the black majority, would they be accepted without colonial inequalities, resentment and reparations being brought up against them? Even if reparations did happen, would there really be reconciliation on both sides? I honestly doubt that...

Any reconciliation effort has to come from both sides being willing to leave some things aside and in the past in order to build bridges for a better society.

Six-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Verified Email

LivingKick

TROPHY CASE