tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3789566195092315192..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Non-Anglican DifficultiesFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17215044443914424702007-08-28T11:39:00.000-04:002007-08-28T11:39:00.000-04:00Fr. Kirby,Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I s...Fr. Kirby,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I shall try to pursue the matter of Parpaglia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58769414878261871372007-08-28T10:57:00.000-04:002007-08-28T10:57:00.000-04:00Dr Tighe,First, my apology for my error about the ...Dr Tighe,<BR/><BR/>First, my apology for my error about the pallium. I misremembered the sequence of events, which was, according to the book I was trying to use from memory, this: Anti-papal legislation enacted and clergy accepting under pressure the statement that the King was supreme head on earth of the C of E, though with the qualification "as far as the law of Christ allows". A couple of years later, Henry VIII's secret marriage to Anne Boleyn. Then, Cranmer's elevation and reception of the pallium. Then, his annulment of Henry's first marriage. Then, among other significant events, the Pope anulling the annulment, Convocation affirming that the Pope had not by Scripture greater authority in England than any other foreign bishop, and Parliament re-emphasising the King's supremacy. Then, under a new Pope, the excommunication of Henry.<BR/><BR/>However, the very nature of the evidence you adduce for opposing Hughson's thesis largely serves to show the thesis is at least partly correct, despite the errors in details. That sounds tendentious, I know, but let me explain. Your proofs for the C of E (and not just the King) being clearly outside the fold and unambiguously treated as such by the Church pre-Mary were: absolutions from schism 20 years after the fact; but at the time <B>opinions</B> of a theology faculty, political and military machinations by the Pope, and characterisations from some European pulpits. What is striking here is that you had to appeal to these rather than an official excommunication of the C of E itself <B>at the time</B>, or a demand the English people recuse from C of E services, or organised and publicly authorised provision of alternative ministry for Catholics in England. Whatever Rome did after the rejection of Roman Supremacy had been overturned by Mary cannot change the fact that it did nothing of canonical or "sacramental" significance during the earlier period.<BR/><BR/>And it did little more for the first decade of Elizabeth's reign. While there were opinions expressed that Catholics should be recusant by theologians at the Council of Trent in 1562 and a few years later by the Pope, a clearly authoritative demand was apparently not made till more than a decade after the rejection of Papal Supremacy and the re-instatement of the BCP. As for the provision of alternative ministry, while you have shown it did happen, perhaps even before the excommunication of Elizabeth as far as I can tell, it was also clearly done <I>ad hoc</I> and very infrequently in this transition period. So, it is fair to say that for three decades in the sixteenth century the RCC effectively tolerated the C of E providing the sacraments to virtually all in England, including those loyal to the Pope, and made no <B>serious</B> attempt to stop their adherents accessing these sacraments.<BR/><BR/>Apologies for my delay in replying to your request about the "offer". Probably the best summary-reference for the "evidence that the Pope was carrying on (informal?)negotiations with Elizabeth which included an offer by the Pope to authorise the BCP" is here:<BR/><BR/>http://anglicanhistory.org/liturgy/harington_pius1856.html<BR/><BR/>Clearly, the claim has been a matter of dispute. But I do believe the balance of evidence makes it probable such an offer was made orally by the Papal Nuncio, Parpalia, as a fleshing out of the papal hints in a letter that the said Nuncio was authorised to discuss details not in the letter.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm going to admit something which may offend everybody, Anglican and Roman. I think it quite possible that the Pope never intended really to accept the BCP despite his probable offer to do so, and thus that Anglicans must be careful in using this evidence. <BR/><BR/>Why do I say this? First, the offer seems to have been deliberately oral rather than written. Second, it was a common opinion among those in authority back then that promises to rebels and heretics by those in authority were not binding. Thus, Rome could promise safety to suspected heretics then subject them to force or violence. King Charles I could treat with rebels and ignore his undertakings to them. In both cases, acting in bad faith was done in "good" conscience, theoretically at least. This might well have been the case here, too.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7069843748558911292007-08-27T20:22:00.000-04:002007-08-27T20:22:00.000-04:00Poet reader,I really do not see any 'tirade' in my...Poet reader,<BR/>I really do not see any 'tirade' in my remarks and none was inserted on this end. But then that seems to be the problem with email it is easy to read into words.<BR/>I do 'care' when I see fellow Anglicans abused by RC's as a matter of venting. Especially when the target is some one I admire greatly.<BR/><BR/>The point as I thought I stated it was to demonstrate the absurdity of getting involved in such a thing as pressing the superiority of the Roman self assessment and / or Anglican for that matter. I 'don't care' about the argument in the sense that it will never be resolved because either sides position will likely never change or admit to the points of the other so why waste time taunting each other over such for centuries?<BR/> <BR/>Dr Tighe's points are well taken but surely some historian hundreds of years from now will defend the United Nations for all they have done to preserve Democracy including it's 'participation' in the Gulf wars. But many will still understand that even with mighty Resolutions there was no effect on the ground.. <BR/><BR/><BR/>If I have offended I certainly apologize. <BR/><BR/>But I must say I have read a lot of pretty rough stuff on here and I wonder why it made it through your approval. <BR/><BR/>I thought Dr. Tighe's tone was quite shrill, but I could have just misunderstood. I certainly harbor no ill will.<BR/><BR/>I have a copy of the cover to a paper alerting the citizens of London about the 'Plot" to overthrow the government.Dustin Asheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316818778798854238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81829125445654490422007-08-27T00:48:00.000-04:002007-08-27T00:48:00.000-04:00The many facts about the Church of England during ...The many facts about the Church of England during the Tudor reigns do not really clear up a theological fog on their own. As Fr. Kirby has pointed out, some of the bishops of the time were very poorly educated.<BR/><BR/>I have often simplified the matter thus: In the first round Henry VIII was in the wrong. In the second round, the pope was in the wrong. And, the second round is the more relevant of the two.<BR/><BR/>Although Queen Elizabeth was moving in a Protestant (as in anti-papal) direction, it was not unprovoked. The pope had called for her overthrow, a thing that could be accomplished only with a civil war and only by her execution. We have to look outside of the religious sphere for the causes.<BR/><BR/>The religious tension was a manifestation of tensions between England and Spain for reasons of competition, and for personal reasons (as Elizabeth was a symbol of what had been done to Henry's rightful queen, one of the Spanish royal family). These tensions led to open warfare, and the Spanish fleet sunk when attempting its invasion. The pope was practically a hostage of King Phillip, and could not refuse the Spanish monarch's demands. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, theology had little to do with the causes of this English reformation. It had little to do with Rome's reactions to it. This was about power politics in Spain, and about national defense and domestic peace in England; and in both cases commercial enterprise was driving competition between these two imperial powers.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27880354091814233832007-08-26T22:37:00.000-04:002007-08-26T22:37:00.000-04:00Dustin AshesYou said:I could care less about the a...Dustin Ashes<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>I could care less about the argument, and yes as Poetreader points out this stuff is nothing more ancient venom. Why did I bother to put it up? Because I thought some might need a taste of their own medicine.<BR/><BR/>and other words to similar effect. If you don't care about the argument, I would respectfully ask that you not participate in it. To post on this board in order to give some 'a taste of their own medicine' or to provoke tempers is not the objective of discussion here. If you care about the argument and the issue, by all means write, and others will write from a different viewpoint. That is proper. To stir up trouble because you feel like doing so (which is what you've told us you were doing) is simply bad manners.<BR/><BR/>Professor Tighe (though I don't accept everything he says either) has been enormously patient with you in your deliberately combative and insulting tirade. I frankly don't have the patience to either ead or respond to material presented in that kind of attitude.<BR/><BR/>You are welcome in this discussion, but only if you can pursue it in a gentlemanly fashion.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84329837516947379242007-08-26T17:33:00.000-04:002007-08-26T17:33:00.000-04:00Simply to quote Hughson at length, when I have alr...Simply to quote Hughson at length, when I have already demonstrated the errors of his arguments, adds nothing to their force.<BR/><BR/>Pope Paul III did at least three things to demoinstrate his attitude towards events in England: he reissued his predecessor's excommunication of Henry VIII; he sent Cardinal Pole posthaste from Rome to the Netherlands in order to be able to cross over to England if the Pilgrimage of Grace should succeed in overthrowing the Henrician regime (but it had failed by the time he arrived); and he brokered a short-lived alliance between the Emperor Charles V and King Francis I of France in 1539 in which both kings agreed to invade England, depose Hanry VIII and restore England to "Catholic unity."<BR/><BR/>When the young Princess Mary, who has been forced by threat of death in 1536 to recognize her father as "Supreme Head" of the Church of England, managed to get a leter smuggled to the pope expressing her horror and regret at what she had been forced to do, and assuring the pope that she would do all in her power if she ever had the opportunity to end the schism, the pope sent her a secret absolution from her "fall."<BR/><BR/>And, by the way, Hughson is totally wrong when he writes:<BR/><BR/>"Watson, the deprived Bishop of Lincoln, lived on until 1584, and six others survived for many years, free to come and go on parole within wide territorial limits without interference or espionage.<BR/><BR/>So Far as is known, none of these Bishops protested against attendance on the Anglican Church, and none of them made any effort to ordain priests for the shepherding of their people."<BR/><BR/>Watson died imprisoned in Wisbech Castle. His "crime" was that he had privately absolved clergy and laity alike for the "sin of schism" in conforming to the Elizabethan Settlement. David Poole, the Marian Bishop of Peterborough did all of these things, and also reordained clergy who had been ordained after 1559 according to Cranmer's Ordinal once he had absolved them of schism, before his death in the early 1570s. Even the most "moderate" of them all, Archbishop Nicholas Heath of York (who had dissuaded Watson of Lincoln and White of Winchester from excommunicating Elizabeth in 1559), never once set foot in a parish church nor attended English services after his deprivation in 1559, and he lived on until 1576.<BR/><BR/>"Why did I bother to put it up? Because I thought some might need a taste of their own medicine."<BR/><BR/>My "medicine" is compounded solely out of fact. It may be bitter to your taste, or you may diagree with my "interpretation" of the "recipe." However, your "medicine" is simply snake oil, for your second posting is as devoid of any factual basis as your first one, and for the most part it merely repeats at more tedious length the assetions from your first one that I have already rebutted. And the interpretation that you struggle to adduce from it is sheer fantasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23007036364934377352007-08-26T15:52:00.000-04:002007-08-26T15:52:00.000-04:00Hit a nerve indeed!Bombast? I see one of my favor...Hit a nerve indeed!<BR/><BR/>Bombast? I see one of my favorite writers did not take exception to the other bombardier in this thread, but then he is 'bombing away' for our Roman friends cause. Note none of his Roman brothers or sisters reading this blog demanded him to curtail his 'screeds'. Thank you Professor for your erudite and biased but 'factual' response. And I stand corrected if there be any relevant correction but there is little that changes the main theme. I believe Rev. Hughson, who I borrowed from loosely, has stated the case accurately and I present most of it below.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I confess, it was meant to be bombastic. Is being a bombast solely the privledge of Roman Catholic converts here on this Continuing Anglican Blog?<BR/><BR/>I could care less about the argument, and yes as Poetreader points out this stuff is nothing more ancient venom. Why did I bother to put it up? Because I thought some might need a taste of their own medicine.<BR/><BR/>Note our distinguished brother does not deny the EWTN presentation of Mary as fourth person of the Godhead. The rest of this pales in comparison.<BR/><BR/>Here are portions of the rest of the "screed" written by Rev. S. C. Hughson, O.H.C. Originally published by Holy Cross Press, 1957 that I borrowed from.<BR/><BR/>...The English Church repudiated the Pope’s claim to universal authority in 1534. ...Clement VII, who was Pope at the time, did not make the slightest effort to withdraw Catholics from the Church of England. If he believed that Henry had established a new Church in which grace could not be found, surely he must have initiated instantly an effort to secure the Sacraments for England, or else stand convicted of the crime of allowing his spiritual children to go on receiving the false Sacraments of this Church. He made no protest whatever. He did not send a single priest to England to rescue the sheep from the false shepherds. He went calmly on, neglecting to the utmost the flock which he claimed God had committed to his pastoral care.<BR/><BR/>But this was not the worst of it. Clement died a few months later. Perhaps he did not have time to get the machinery of the Church into operation to attend to English affairs. But he was succeeded by Paul III, and surely the new Pope, in the first fervor of his high office would rouse himself to save his flock from this so called Church of merely human origin. But not a bit of it. For fifteen years he ruled serene on the Vatican Hill, and not only did not lift a finger to help them, but never suggested that they needed help.<BR/><BR/>Then came Julius III, who, after six years was, in his turn, succeeded by Marcellus II, who died on the twenty-second day after his election. No blame can be attached to Marcellus, who was a good and Holy man, for, inso brief a space of time, it was impossible that he could have put any plan on foot for the relief of the English Catholics; although more might have been expected of Pope Julius in the six years of his pontificate.<BR/><BR/>With the choice of Marcellus began a movement for reform in the Roman Church, and he was succeeded by Giovanni Petro Caraffa, who is described as “the most rigid among all cardinals.” He began his reign in May, 1555, as Paul IV.<BR/><BR/>Paul was filled with a burning spirit of reform, and no small degree of success he enjoyed a strong, righteous, and beneficent reign of something more than four years, during which period men caught once more the almost forgotten vision of the Church living and functioning in the power of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>He was the Pope in the reign of Queen Mary, and during the first year of Elizabeth. He was stern to the last degree in dealing with the English political situation, but it does not seem to have occurred to him on Elizabeth’s accession to provide for his English children any other ministration than those of the English Church. He died in August, 1559, and Pius IV, the Pope of the great reforming Council of Trent reigned in his stead.<BR/><BR/>Pius died over six years later in 1565, bringing to an end the sixth papal reign since Henry VIII was said to have “founded” his “new” Church.<BR/><BR/>The seventh reign began under Pius V. He is described by an Anglican historian (Bishop Creighton, the Age of Elizabeth, p. 109) as “austere, zealous, determined, a man of fervor, piety and blameless life,”-surely the man who would brook no delay in repairing the wrongs done by his predecessors to the English Catholics, and who would see that they enjoyed that pastoral attention which, according to the papal claim, it was his duty to give and heir right to receive.<BR/><BR/>Before considering the course he pursued, we must go back for a moment to note that all this while changes were taking place in England as well as at the Vatican. In 1547 King Henry came to the end of his career of murder, lust and cruelty. According to our modern Roman friends he had founded a new Church, and set it up against that ancient church which had made England the glorious “Isle of the Saints.”<BR/><BR/>But in spite of all this, the English Church, under the head of Henry’s Primate, Thomas Cranmer, went on in full communion with the Church of Rome. Rome did nothing to separate herself from the “new” Church. She was content to be in communion with it. Edward VI succeeded Henry, and six unhappy years for the Roman religion in England followed. <BR/><BR/>On Edward’s death in 1553, Mary’s accession brought a brief surcease of trouble to those who still looked to Rome as their spiritual mother; but Mary died in 1558 and Elizabeth, Henry’s daughter by Anne Bolin, came to the throne with all her Tudor strength and courage.<BR/><BR/>As we have seen, Pius IV now reigned in Rome. His name will stand in all history, along with that of Innocent III, as one of the greatest of reformers. It was his holy zeal and indefatigable labors that brought to a sudden end the progress of the Protestant revolt in Europe, and, as Dr. Preserved Smith has pointed out, that movement has been able to make no further advance since that period.<BR/><BR/>But this great reforming Pope saw nothing unworthy in the course of his predecessors, and handed on his office to the fifth pontiff of his name, while English Catholics still looked to the English Church for their spiritual sustenance.<BR/><BR/>Pius V with eager hope, now began negotiations with Henry’s daughter to bring England once more beneath the papal yoke.<BR/><BR/>Elizabeth was perhaps the most astute diplomat of her day, but like her father, when it suited her purpose, she knew how to fling subterfuge to the winds, and shatter all diplomatic intrigue by proclaiming the brutal truth in a tome that made men tremble. It was thus she made answer to the Pope’s approaches.<BR/><BR/>No man who was not a sheer fool could have mistaken her purposes, and while Popes have been weak and wicked, they have rarely been fools. Nevertheless, more than ten years of Elizabeth’s reign passed, and still English Catholics received all ministrations from the hands of the clergy, who they now say, had not even valid Orders, whose Sacraments possessed no more efficacy than the ministrations of an Arab dervish.<BR/><BR/>In the year 1581 when Sir Francis Walsingham was sent on an embassy to France, his instructions stated that in the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign all Catholics attended the services of the Anglican Church “without any contradiction or show of misliking.”<BR/><BR/>This statement, made by Elizabeth’s own government, might be open to suspicion, but when we find it corroborated in 1595 by Father Parsons, the most distinguished Jesuit propagandist in Europe, and again in 1605 by Father Garnett of the same Order, when on trial for his life, there can be no further question.<BR/><BR/>Nor was it because there was no opportunity in England for continuing a strictly Roman Catholic ministry for those who wished to adhere to the Pope. <BR/><BR/>Watson, the deprived Bishop of Lincoln, lived on until 1584, and six others survived for many years, free to come and go on parole within wide territorial limits without interference or espionage.<BR/><BR/>So Far as is known, none of these Bishops protested against attendance on the Anglican Church, and none of them made any effort to ordain priests for the shepherding of their people.<BR/><BR/>In fact, it was this definite determination of these bishops not to ordain clergy which decided Cardinal Allen, and others, to establish seminaries on the Continent, at Douay, and other places, to train clergy for work among the English Romanists.<BR/><BR/>At last in 1570, thirty six years after Henry VIII had. according to the present papal claim, founded the Church of England, despairing of inducing the English ever again to bow their necks to the yoke of Rome, Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth and all who adhered to the Church of England. Now for the first time those who had adhered to Rome were told that it would be sin to communicate at English altars.<BR/><BR/>Thirty-six years! During this period millions had been born, baptized, confirmed, shriven, had received their Communions regularly at Anglican altars; had finished their course, and fortified by the last Sacraments, had gone out into the other world; -and Pope after Pope had regarded it as a thing to be permitted without question that all these faithful souls, hungering for the Bread of Life, should be fed by the shepherds of a Church which Rome now declares to be the evil device of the most wicked king who ever sat on England’s throne.<BR/><BR/>We Anglicans may be a lot of things, and unimportant in comparison to the great Roman Church but one thing is for sure no one can accuse us of forcing manmade dogma's onto the faithful.Dustin Asheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316818778798854238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82033982026742165722007-08-26T15:40:00.000-04:002007-08-26T15:40:00.000-04:00Sandra, I've had a go at trying to answer your sec...Sandra, <BR/><BR/>I've had a <A HREF="http://warwickensis.blogspot.com/2007/08/ructions-in-lab.html" REL="nofollow">go</A> at trying to answer your second question on the failure of the Anglican experiment.<BR/><BR/>I hope at the least it will fuel better thoughts.Warwickensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310450226153796760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78935310745290015142007-08-26T15:07:00.000-04:002007-08-26T15:07:00.000-04:00Fr Kirby,Thank you for your nuanced demurral. I r...Fr Kirby,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your nuanced demurral. I reply with two points.<BR/><BR/>First, when Bishop Gardiner of Winchester was passing through the Low Countries to Germany in 1540 he stopped at Louvain. He heard a number of academic disputations, but was refused his request for an altar at which to say Mass because (in then opinion of the faculty) he was a schismatic bishop. Moreover, I know of no instances of English archbishops receiving the pallium from Rome after 1534. The Henrician supremacy legislation explicitly provided for future new to receive the pallium from the king, in any case. (And the use of the pallium was discontinued after 1559.)<BR/><BR/>Secondly, there is a recent collection of essays by Prof. Peter Marshall of Warwick University (I forget the title, but it was published by Ashgate in 2005). One of them deals with the growth in Spain from the 1530s onwards of a "Black Legend" about the English and England that is the counterpart of the "Black Legend" concerning Spain that grew up in England from the 1560s onwards. According to this "legends" the Spanish rapidly came to think of the English as irreligious knaves who put up with the whims and shifts of opinions of a tyrannical king who changed his wives at will and murdered anyone who got in his way. Marshall makes it clear that the English were widely being characterized as "schismatics" from Spanish pulpits as early as the 1530s, and suggests that there is some evidence that the same message was being disseminated in France, Italy and elsewhere at the same period.<BR/><BR/>I know of no evidence that any pope ever gave any indication, before and especially after 1559, that he would be prepared to tolerate any liturgical rites whatsoever in a "reunited" Church of England than the pre-Reformation Latin services. Certainly, what stopped the "reunion" negotiations between King Johan of Sweden and the Holy See in the late 1570s and early 80s was Rome's absolute refusal to tolerate any form of "Swedish Mass," and that despite the king's willingness to have all the Swedish bishops either reconsecrated according to the Roman Pontifical or else replaced by bishops more acceptable to Rome. As the talks went on, Rome also made it clear that it was unwilling to accept married bishops at all, and that it would only tolerate married clergy and communion in both kinds during the initial "reunion generation." If there is real evidence that Rome ever indicated a willingness to allow the BCP I do not know of it, and I should very much like to learn about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-68471402720743654292007-08-26T14:15:00.000-04:002007-08-26T14:15:00.000-04:00If we're infinitesimally small, and no-one cares a...If we're infinitesimally small, and no-one cares about what we think, then why should someone actually bother to write in?<BR/><BR/>I think that quite clearly the Continuum (both blog and institution) has hit nerves. It's a scandal to the Holy See and a stumbling block for the Liberals. We've certainly got up the noses of some people. I actually think that Sean W has paid us quite a compliment, since clearly we do matter to him.Warwickensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310450226153796760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-101976912321152262007-08-26T14:03:00.000-04:002007-08-26T14:03:00.000-04:00Sean W. said...If anyone is angry here, it's all o...Sean W. said...<BR/><BR/><I>If anyone is angry here, it's all of you Anglicans. If anyone is shouting out for attention, it's the pathetic souls in "The Continuum" who are so desparate for everyone else to recognize the legitimacy of your infinitesimally tiny splinter groups. No one, and I mean NO ONE, outside of your weird little world, gives a damn about your puffed up nonsense. And yet you all think you're the arbiters of authentic catholic Christianity. Unbelievable!</I><BR/><BR/>And we don't give a damn if the uneducated and ignorant "recognize" us at all. Here again is the angry voice of an ad hominem attack. Here again is a complete absence of any argument. Sean W. has screamed a scream, and said nothing. Why do some people work so hard to look silly, and then leave their names?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48369373889061814732007-08-26T10:39:00.000-04:002007-08-26T10:39:00.000-04:00Dr Tighe,You make many fair points, but there is a...Dr Tighe,<BR/><BR/>You make many fair points, but there is another side to the story<BR/><BR/>1. While Henry was personally excommunicated, the C of E was not. For years after there was no interdict and no call from Rome to abandon te communion of the C of E. Bishops still received the pallium for Rome, if I remember correctly! The absolution from schism and heresy was entirely post facto and, effectively, retrospective legislation. This means that Rome did tacitly accept the C of E as a "particular Church" at least for all of Henry's reign, and did nothing officially as far as I know to change this until after Edward's death. The actions taken in Mary's reign do not change history, a history of relative inaction for decades before.<BR/><BR/>2. In Elizabeth's time again there was, as I understand it, no excommunication and no manifestly binding demand to recuse from the communion of the C of E for over a decade after the Elizabethan Settlement. Which is why, I suppose, that most faithful to the Pope did go to C of E communion for years. And during this time there is evidence that the Pope was carrying on (informal?)negotiations with Elizabeth which included an offer by the Pope to authorise the BCP as long as she recognised Papal Supremacy (which in that age included civil supremacy in reality). Which indicates neither the Anglican Ordinal or other sacraments were ever really the key dividing issue.<BR/><BR/>3. As for Elizabeth imposing her will on bishops, it is worth remembering she was not the first European monarch to do that, not excluding Mary. And while Elizabeth replaced most of the bishops, she didn't burn any to death in God's name. Mary replaced fewer, it is true, but one might say she got rid of hers with more gusto. So, what did the majority of the Church in England want at Elizabeth's accession? Depends on whether we look at bishops, clergy or laity. The first wanted the Pope, the second probably just wanted to be left alone for a while by all sides! The third were already divided. Even the laity who wanted the Pope's supreme jurisdiction were often hardly very knowledgable or pious about their faith it would appear. <BR/>One of the popular RC rebellions demanded, inter alia, a return to the situation when only the priest had Communion and they could just look on and adore at the Elevation, if memory serves.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33269854392460877582007-08-26T10:11:00.000-04:002007-08-26T10:11:00.000-04:00Historical arguments are always a tricky and decep...Historical arguments are always a tricky and deceptive thing. It's a funny thing about history that it seems to change, depending upon whose opinions are being defended/attacked. This is applicable to every period of time and every trend being tracked. The assertions made by one side of a dispute and those made by their opponents are very often so different as to make one wonder if there are two different worlds being discussed. In ecclesiatical history this is especially notable. Whether the contention be over the schism of 1054, or the events of the English Reformation, or Deerfield Beach, or any of the other notable events of two millennia, "fact" is asserted as over against contradictory "fact", and one finds that much of what is said by either side csan be handily disproved, but at the same time it is also frequent that both contradictory positions have solid documentarly support.<BR/><BR/>Dustin Ashes' account is a rehash of classic arguments of Anglican Protestantism of the last few centuries, and much of it is no more reliable than the 'Nag's Head" myth once spread by Rome. Such assertions prove nothing. Even were they not already exploded they would prove nothing in the light of contrary assertions that are at least as reliable.<BR/><BR/>However, Professor Tighe, though (in my estimation) far more accurate as to existing records is also somewhat selective in his choice of facts and tends to see them through a more RC-oriented eye. That's not bad, but certainly does not prove a point.<BR/><BR/>We can argue history endlessly, and, though history is of vital importance in an incarnational system such as Christianity, the differences of opinion will not be resolved. Total knowledge of times gone by is simply not available to mortals.<BR/><BR/>I'm who I am, here and now, an Anglican, convinced of the validity of my church and my experience in God's sight, and somewhat less than sold on the claims of other good and blessed jurisdictions such as that of Rome.<BR/><BR/>Rome, on the other hand, believes that I lack something vital. Though history has a bearing, its role won't be entirely resolved. We need to be seeking God here and now for a resolution of the man-made divisions that plague his church. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87498308543083845202007-08-26T09:46:00.000-04:002007-08-26T09:46:00.000-04:00If anyone is angry here, it's all of you Anglicans...If anyone is angry here, it's all of you Anglicans. If anyone is shouting out for attention, it's the pathetic souls in "The Continuum" who are so desparate for everyone else to recognize the legitimacy of your infinitesimally tiny splinter groups. No one, and I mean NO ONE, outside of your weird little world, gives a damn about your puffed up nonsense. And yet you all think you're the arbiters of authentic catholic Christianity. Unbelievable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55862749278661690902007-08-26T00:02:00.000-04:002007-08-26T00:02:00.000-04:00"Dustin Ashes" discredits himself and his own caus..."Dustin Ashes" discredits himself and his own cause by his wildly mistaken and even foolish historical statements. To take but a few, he writes:<BR/><BR/>"The problem with this position is that for the 36 years after Henry claimed authority for his own evil pursuits, and until Elizabeth 1 spurned the political intrigues of Pius V with typical Tudor frankness, not one of the seven infallable Popes ever questioned or made mention that a new Church had been formed in England or that said Church was not fully Catholic. Seven Popes over 36 years and not a single peep, or is that Pope?"<BR/><BR/>This is absurd. Henry VIII was excommunicated in 1534 for heresy and schism by Rome. Under Mary Tudor, on November 30, 1554, the whole realm of England, personified in the monarchs, Philip & Mary, the House of Lords, the House of Commons and the Convocations of Canterbury and of York, were absolved of schism and heresy bu the papal legate a latere Reginald, Cardinal Pole, who in his ensuing sermon spoke of over 21 years of schism "from Christ's Catholic Church" being now at an end. A Bull of Pope Julius III in August 1553 empowered Pole to absolve the Realm of England from schism; later Bulls of Paul IV ("Praeclara Clarissimi" of June 1555 and "Regimini Universalis" of October 1555) required the reordination of all English clergy who had been ordained under Cranmer's Ordinals of 1550 and 1552, but not those who had been ordained previously by the Roman Pontifical, albeit "in time of the schism." You can hardly get clearer than that.<BR/><BR/>In England itself, Bishop Bonner of London, a man originally consecrated in 1540 during Henry VIII's separation from Rome, produced in 1556 "A Profitable and Necessary Doctrine", written by Bishop Bonner and one of his chaplains; it was a series of homilies ordered by Pole to be read in the Diocese of Gloucester in 1555, and at one point it speaks of "the late made Ministers ... in the new devised Ordination, having no authoritie ... to offer ... these late counterfeited Ministers ...." Again, if this is not schism, than words have no meaning.<BR/><BR/>The next paragraph, which begins "2) In order to support the notion that Anglicans are less than fully Catholic and if a new Church was formed we must address the allegation from the period in which the different church is said to arise. It was Pope Pius V, who in a fit of rage, excommunicated Elizabeth I" is no less absurd. In February 1559, as the legislation to repudiate the papal jurisdiction and to replace the restored Latin services with the Book of Common Prayer was being introduced in Parliament, the Crown asked the Convocation of Canterbury to express its views on the matter. It responded by upholding Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the "divine right" of the papacy, the incompetence of any monarch or secular assembly (like parliament) to enact legislation touching doctrine or "reform" of the church. Since the Convocation was the nearest thing that the Church of England had to an organ to express its own views, the actions of February 1559 was a clear repudiation in advance by the Church of England itself of the Elizabethan Settlement (a repudiation which the academic convocations of both Cambridge and Oxford universities endorsed within less than a month). The Bishops of Lincoln and Winchester were narrowly dissuaded from excommunicating Elizabeth I on their own authority in January 1559 -- a dissuasion that Lincoln regretted for the rest of his life.<BR/><BR/>"Even during Elizabeth's accension the regular clergy, the majority of which had served in Mary's reign, voiced no concern that a new and un-catholic Church had been formed."<BR/><BR/>Precisely the same assertion could be made of the "regular clergy" of Reformed Switzerland or Lutheran Scandinavia. Does this prove that the Church of Geneva or the church of Denmark was just as "Catholic" as the Church of England? And, in any event, I have already alluded to the clear statements of the Convcation of Canterbury in 1559.<BR/><BR/>You should be ashamed of imposing such an ignorant screed, devoid of any historical knowledge, on the readers of this site, who deserve better than such empty bombast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8995165914119215742007-08-25T18:07:00.000-04:002007-08-25T18:07:00.000-04:00Well this is all very lively!What a fine article b...Well this is all very lively!<BR/><BR/>What a fine article by Fr. Hart. I suspect the Hart's is country folk, which is a good thing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I once came home from Church and my new puppy had fully, did I say fully?, relieved himself on the newspaper as he was taught to do. <BR/><BR/>Problem was I forgot to take it off the kitchen table and put it on the floor before leaving. It was quite a sight or should I say site.<BR/><BR/>I see the parallel here in the work of Bishop Morrison. Mr. Treat is doing only as he was taught.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As to the Roman thing Mr. Treat who has shamed himfelf and his new haunts, might consider the twin horns one or the other of which he is now impaled upon.<BR/> <BR/>1) By swimming (dog-paddling?) the Tiber he has had to accept the notion of Infallibility.<BR/><BR/>The problem with this position is that for the 36 years after Henry claimed authority for his own evil pursuits, and until Elizabeth 1 spurned the political intrigues of Pius V with typical Tudor frankness, not one of the seven infallable Popes ever questioned or made mention that a new Church had been formed in England or that said Church was not fully Catholic. Seven Popes over 36 years and not a single peep, or is that Pope?<BR/><BR/>2) In order to support the notion that Anglicans are less than fully Catholic and if a new Church was formed we must address the allegation from the period in which the different church is said to arise. It was Pope Pius V, who in a fit of rage, excommunicated Elizabeth I (and tried to foment her assignation) along with the Church in English because following the example of many other states (Hohenstaufen Emperors for one) who were not excommunicated for precisely the same transgression... she would not agree to the novelty of supreme Papal authority over her Kingdom. This was not a matter of theology but of power politics. At this point, some how after almost 4 decades and countless baptisms, marraiges, and burials were performed under the claimed spiritual authority of the See of Rome we finally come to an abrupt and simultaneous allegation and judgement of not being catholic. Can you imagine Bill Clinton coming along after 36 years of TV coverage movies and books, stating that John F. Kennedy was not really assignated. Utterly unthinkable! Utterly pathetic. Pius V can accurately be said to have simply thrown a tantrum at being stood up to by a women of spine and resolve.<BR/><BR/>Where does that leave those Romans who insist on slandering us in pride or anger?<BR/><BR/>They admit one of the following:<BR/><BR/>1)Either seven infallable Popes were guilty of abandoning millions of souls to a false Church, one that they asserted their exclusive spiritual authority over, or <BR/>2) the Anglican Church was and still is the legitimate Catholic Church of the land, and Roman controversialists of past and present are uttering a slander of exceeding gravity against their infallible Fathers and brethren who went before them! <BR/><BR/>Even during Elizabeth's accension the regular clergy, the majority of which had served in Mary's reign, voiced no concern that a new and un-catholic Church had been formed. <BR/><BR/> According to records the clergy numbered about 9400, and only 192 refused to take the oath of allegience and serve the reformed Catholic Church in England.<BR/><BR/>Now this does not even touch upon the Roman novelty of the fourth person of the Trinity which has been broadcast on at least two different programs on EWTN of which I have personally witnessed in drop jaw disbelief. I have always heard this claim from the more venal protestants and always thought it an exaggeration 'till I heard it for myself, not alluded to but directly given voice by clergy and broadcast on "RCC" TV without any explanation or retraction.<BR/><BR/>The worst trait displayed by Mr. Treat (odd name in this case) is his claim to be a part of the One True Church while heaping scorn on other legitimate Christians who are fighting the evil one rather than each other. No other corner of Christianity is as under seige as is the Anglican corner and that ought be pause for thought because if we be so important to the enemy as to spend so much effort to overturn what then does that say about whether or not we are a right part of the Body? <BR/><BR/>As well... No other corner of Christianity freely voices as much respect and love for the Romans than do the Anglo Catholics even though we cannot by intellect or by faith, accept their man made additions to the Catholic Faith. Does this mean another limb on the 'tree' ? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Treat does himself and his new home a dishonor and if he expects to be a lurker for the shared cause of so many swimmers- that of bringing others over to the Roman way of thinking (often the case with converts), he has failed miserably. <BR/>The big question is why bother with us if he is indeed in the One True Church? Why look back?? How ever so many, after their little swim, cannot fully embrace and focus on their new religion and must stand on the opposite bank and frantically wave for attention!<BR/><BR/>We can hope and pray he will Possibly receive some instruction and formation he could not get from Bishop Morrison on what Christianity is.Dustin Asheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316818778798854238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65313129310929947642007-08-25T08:11:00.000-04:002007-08-25T08:11:00.000-04:00"I'm more worried about where he got the image of ..."I'm more worried about where he got the image of someone peeing on the table. "<BR/><BR/>Well where ever it came from, it's not an image that I'll be able to shake off for a long time, even if he can!Warwickensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310450226153796760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13519221060687786212007-08-24T23:39:00.000-04:002007-08-24T23:39:00.000-04:00agrarian wrote:"Those Hart family get-togethers mu...agrarian wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Those Hart family get-togethers must be something else when all the brothers show up."<BR/><BR/>I'm more worried about where he got the image of someone peeing on the table.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38893713094296585162007-08-24T20:15:00.000-04:002007-08-24T20:15:00.000-04:00I remember reading Eric Mascall (think it was Corp...I remember reading Eric Mascall (think it was Corpus Christi, but can't be sure) to the effect that 'Peter was the chief of the Apostles, but not the only Apostle.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81237907735115488232007-08-24T19:51:00.000-04:002007-08-24T19:51:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart wrote:We must take Newman at his word, th...Fr. Hart wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>We must take Newman at his word, that he was a firm believer in the Roman Catholic position. Not only does that make the eleven mere assistants and subordinates to St. Peter, but it makes every bishop in the world (including the other patriarchs) effectively a suffragan bishop under the pope, who alone has the authority of a bishop.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>My point exactly, Father. The legitimacy of all Roman Catholic "developments" rests on Papal Supremacy (as opposed to Papal Primacy, universally accepted by Orthodox Catholics) which in turn rests on seeing the Apostles as Peter and his eleven assistants. The mystical weight attached to "Peter's Throne" effectively overturns the Vincentian Canon which has always defined Catholicism itself. Thus, an Orthodox Catholic must undergo an actual conversion in order to become a genuine Roman Catholic, as opposed to a grudging one.<BR/><BR/>Those Hart family get-togethers must be something else when all the brothers show up. Perhaps you might start recording those dinner table discussions so that they might be uploaded to Youtube? Hehehe.Jacobitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207829479701264969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22603840056175851372007-08-24T19:02:00.000-04:002007-08-24T19:02:00.000-04:00We must take Newman at his word, that he was a fir...We must take Newman at his word, that he was a firm believer in the Roman Catholic position. Not only does that make the eleven mere assistants and subordinates to St. Peter, but it makes every bishop in the world (including the other patriarchs) effectively a suffragan bishop under the pope, who alone has the authority of a bishop.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6108023380300656262007-08-24T16:07:00.000-04:002007-08-24T16:07:00.000-04:00sandra mccoll wrote:Why is the word 'convert' and ...sandra mccoll wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Why is the word 'convert' and not 'transfer'? If you go to Rome, do you really have to accept that you've never been Christian before?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Interesting point. From my own experience, it certainly requires a conversion to move from any Anabaptist or post-Reformation denominational belief (I am being careful not to misuse the word Protestant) to Catholicism. Certainly such sects are fond of putting things in terms of "Christians" and "Catholics," and only the Holy Spirit can sufficiently upend one's theological and ecclesiological worldview to enable such a radical move. But upon conversion, Catholicism affords the convert the options of Orthodox Catholicism (Eastern Orthodoxy in its Eastern form or high church Anglicanism in its Western form) or Roman Catholicism (the Roman "developed" distortion of the Orthodox Catholicism of the undivided Church). I suspect that generally most new <I>Christian</I> converts to Catholicism go high church Anglican or Eastern Orthodox, even if they later go Roman Catholic.<BR/><BR/>Certainly an Orthodox Catholic could move from high church Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism, absent a conversion, by "holding one's nose" and ignoring the Roman theological innovations which would continue to trouble him; and certainly this has been done countless times in the past, generally while newly regarding Rome as the "lesser of two (or more) evils" (usually contra Anglicanism's historically compromised position). But to <I>truly</I> become Roman Catholic, one really has to come to see the Twelve Apostles as "Peter and his eleven assistants." Absent that belief, any Catholic will always be troubled by new Roman "developments." And I therefore suspect that it requires yet another conversion to come to that level of faith that the Roman Catholic Church is the "True Church," absolutely infallible in all its "developments."<BR/><BR/>Did Newman simply "swallow hard" and bury his theological concerns in order to accept what he perceived as Rome's "less compromised" position (i.e. lesser of two evils)? Or did he genuinely come to see the Apostles as Peter and his eleven assistants? I have not read enough Newman to say for sure. However, I strongly suspect that he represented the former case (non-conversion), having simply alienated himself from his Anglican peers to the point that Rome began to look more and more attractive. If this is so, then Newman's truly was a "transfer" as opposed to a conversion.Jacobitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06207829479701264969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75684835995829249032007-08-24T12:46:00.000-04:002007-08-24T12:46:00.000-04:00Apologies to Carlos and Timotheus for confusing th...Apologies to Carlos and Timotheus for confusing the two in an above comment to Deacon Treat (though I know he no longer recognizes that indelible sacrament in his own case). <BR/><BR/>Timotheus wrote:<BR/><I>On the other hand, I have great issues with denying "apostolic Orders" to todays Anglicans (before ordaining women).</I><BR/><BR/>A good point to remember is that our whole movement began in order to protect the sacrament of Holy Orders which was threatened by this heretical innovation. We do not recognize many Anglican orders ourselves.<BR/><BR/>According to eyewitnesses who were inside the Vatican (as related to my source who is absolutely reliable), Pope Paul VI was ready to rescind <I>Apostolicae Curae</I> (about which Fr. Kirby and I wrote a great deal, available in the April 2006 archives of this blog), but was prevented from doing so because certain Anglican jurisdictions (notably the Episcopal Church in the U.S.) were "ordaining" women. This one innovation ended the attempt to make the AC and the EO Church into one Church, and the serious attempts to reunify with Rome. Women's "Ordination" has kept the Great Schism of 1054 alive and well. It was far more Satanic than most people realize.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30621164734591746642007-08-24T11:43:00.000-04:002007-08-24T11:43:00.000-04:00By my experience, Rod, your leaving Anglicanism fo...By my experience, Rod, your leaving Anglicanism for Rome is "out of the frying pan, into the fire."<BR/><BR/>Good luck with your new found ultra-montanism. You'll fit in well with the sedevacantists and FSSPX people I know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24014272686741383902007-08-24T08:41:00.000-04:002007-08-24T08:41:00.000-04:00At my parish, and I think it to be pretty much sta...At my parish, and I think it to be pretty much standard in ACA, it is the latter. Any Baptized Christian who accepts the Real Presence.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.com