Anglican vs Episcopal

[pipper]

Jacob, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that all extempore prayers are "from the heart, and all liturgical, written prayers are from, shall we say somewhere else.

That could not be further from the truth.

I too was brought up in a nonliturgical Evangelical church where all prayers were “off the cuff”, and thus assumed to be ‘from the heart’ and sincere. So many times I heard: “Dear heavenly Father, we just want to thank you for letting us come and worship you. Just let us agree to the truth of thy Holy WORD, and speak to our hearts through the sermon, In Jesus’ Name, aymin.” How is that not formulaic and ‘from the heart’?

But now I am a Catholic and think differently. I realise that extempore prayers are no more ‘from the heart’, and sincere than liturgical, written prayers.

What makes a prayer from the heart and sincere is not whether the prayer is extempore or written, it is that the pray-er thinks about what s/he says and means it.

One big advantage to me is that when liturgical prayers are used, they are all written down for the worshiper to participate. With extempore prayers that is of course impossible. In that case all the worshipper can do is sit and listen, they are given no chance at all to participate.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m going to have to answer this, because I did jump into the topic without actual need. I apologize, as I was not meaning to be hostile. I mostly just thought that the previous post was a good joke.

I’m sure that your knowledge of the Episcopal church, being Episcopal, does exceed mine. I can say that I do have a bit of first-hand experience with Episcopalians though. I attend a Eucharist service every month, and I’ve also gone for feast day services. But yes, I’d have to agree that I don’t know a great deal. My comments are derived solely from my experiences with the church, but these experiences may or may not reflect common Episcopal practices and teachings.

As far as the Lord’s Prayer, I’d have to say that, having no doctrinal knowledge with which to make any accusation, I did not mean to assault anyone’s beliefs, but rather to introduce my bit on that, in the spirit of friendly conversation. I am very interested in context, and that would be about it. I find new things in scripture all of the time, even if it’s a verse that I’ve repeated countless times, and I merely wish to share them with people. I don’t like using scripture to hurt people, and I’m certainly not trying to hurt anyone here.

The “humming” part was in poor taste, and I apologize. That and when I said that the services were “fun” were my rough, inarticulate ways of saying that I don’t agree with some of the things that the priests do in the church, but I probably wouldn’t bother mentioning it if I had been raised with these ritualized blessings and prayers, it just seems amusing to someone who doesn’t have that background. But my mother, for instance, was raised Catholic, so she would be quite used to that kind of service, and probably wouldn’t appreciate me “getting kicks” from it.

Finally, I know for a fact that Episcopalians use Holy Water for many purposes, including baptism, during which they “sprinkle” it. And who am I? This was probably a rhetorical question, but I am a nobody. I did not mean to imply that I had any kind of religious authority. I’m just another sinner, like all of you, who reads, prays, listens, and thinks, and apparently entered a board with more hostility than I had expected. That being said, it probably wasn’t my place to post here, having no authoritative knowledge on the original topic that was being discussed.

I apologize for being too noisy and zealous.

You explain yourself well, and I accept your apology. May we converse in peacefulness from now on!

 

[IAGladfelter]

Lets just cut to the chase: All Episcopalians are Anglicans. Not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. All Churches which are members of the Anglican Communion are Anglicans. Not all Anglican Churches are members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopalians and all other Anglicans are members of Churches which derive from the Church of England, worship using one version or another of the Book of Common Prayer, and have Bishops whose Apostolic Lineages trace back to the Church of England.

Other than this, in their theology, social doctrines, worship habits, etc., etc., Episcopalians and the other Anglicans “are all over the map.”

Blessings.

 

[defenderoftruth]

First off for the poster that claims that we aren’t a valid church with valid authority, try doing some homework. (I won’t do it for you) Fact is there were Catholics in Britain before Augustine of Canterbury was sent from Rome. Henry VIII as wicked as he was simply put the church back in it’s independent form with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the clerical head. (not supreme authority-Anglicans don’t believe in a supreme leader only place of honor much like the EO that’s why the current Bishop of Rome Benedict XVI is not our supreme leader but is in fact a valid Bishop of Rome). Another thing after our church went it seperate ways from Rome those that went to Rome as clergy from the Anglican church years later didn’t have to be re-ordained but were accepted on confession of faith. But since dogmas and councils have happened to which the Anglicans were absent and or might not have agreed the “you have an invalid priesthood” is the current trend. The Traditional Continuing Anglicans today are those that mirror the Oxford movement back in the 1800’s England that John Cardinal Henry Newman was part of. (he became Roman later of course-I haven’t read his Development of Doctrine book yet) They hated the taking out of Catholic things in the Anglican church and wanted the church to be its Catholic self not some butchered protestant wanna be thing. Unfortunately those that were head of the Anglican church in England at the time hated anything Catholic and it took till the 1970’s for us to get back to the Oxford days with our churches.

BTW, sorry to burst everyone’s bubble but the early church called the churches all over the known world (except those that were heretical gnostic cults) the Catholic Church (not ROMAN) to which the church(s) in Britain belonged before Augustine of Canterbury. You can get upset about the whole Henry VIII thing I am I think the guy was a perv that went through women like toilet paper. The Anglican church in England started to do right with the Oxford movement but it was squashed by Catholic haters but we are Oxford minded Anglo-Catholic people not this “trend” that is in the ECUSA and the formal World Anglican Communion. Don’t sit there and treat us like we aren’t Christians or Anglo-Catholics. (notice I didn’t say Roman Catholic there is a difference) Just because we are few doesn’t make us non Anglicans just because we are Anglicans doesn’t make us not Anglo-Catholic.

Read this on wikipedia under Augustine of Canterbury “Background on the mission” section you’ll see in the first two paragraphs that the Brits had the Catholic faith early on before the Roman See came into the picture. This whole “there were no Catholics in Britain until Rome came as missionaries” is a total fallacy. We had the faith before Rome and we have it afterwards…

 

[GKC]

First off for the poster that claims that we aren’t a valid church with valid authority, try doing some homework. (I won’t do it for you) Fact is there were Catholics in Britain before Augustine of Canterbury was sent from Rome. Henry VIII as wicked as he was simply put the church back in it’s independent form with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the clerical head. (not supreme authority-Anglicans don’t believe in a supreme leader only place of honor much like the EO that’s why the current Bishop of Rome Benedict XVI is not our supreme leader but is in fact a valid Bishop of Rome). Another thing after our church went it seperate ways from Rome those that went to Rome as clergy from the Anglican church years later didn’t have to be re-ordained but were accepted on confession of faith. But since dogmas and councils have happened to which the Anglicans were absent and or might not have agreed the “you have an invalid priesthood” is the current trend. The Traditional Continuing Anglicans today are those that mirror the Oxford movement back in the 1800’s England that John Cardinal Henry Newman was part of. (he became Roman later of course-I haven’t read his Development of Doctrine book yet) They hated the taking out of Catholic things in the Anglican church and wanted the church to be its Catholic self not some butchered protestant wanna be thing. Unfortunately those that were head of the Anglican church in England at the time hated anything Catholic and it took till the 1970’s for us to get back to the Oxford days with our churches.

BTW, sorry to burst everyone’s bubble but the early church called the churches all over the known world (those that were heretical gnostic cults) the Catholic Church (not ROMAN) to which the church(s) in Britain belonged before Augustine of Canterbury. You can get upset about the whole Henry VIII thing I am I think the guy was a perv that went through women like toilet paper. The Anglican church in England started to do right with the Oxford movement but it was squashed by Catholic haters but we are Oxford minded Anglo-Catholic people not this “trend” that is in the ECUSA and the formal World Anglican Communion. Don’t sit there and treat us like we aren’t Christians or Anglo-Catholics. (notice I didn’t say Roman Catholic there is a difference) Just because we are few doesn’t make us non Anglicans just because we are Anglicans doesn’t make us not Anglo-Catholic.

Read this on wikipedia under Augustine of Canterbury “Background on the mission” section you’ll see in the first two paragraphs that the Brits had the Catholic faith early on before the Roman See came into the picture. This whole “there were no Catholics in Britain until Rome came as missionaries” is a total fallacy. We had the faith before Rome and we have it afterwards…

Remember, in addition, that Henry was declared Supreme Head of the Church in England, by his Supreme Head Act of 1534, making the CoE Erastian, which it had not been before. This was modified by Elizabeth’s Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the title and role to Supreme Governor, but left the CoE Erastian. In Herny’s life, there was a supreme authority. It wore the crown (hence his Six Articles, for example).

Your history of what an Anglican priest would have to do, in moving to Rome, post Henrician days, is not accurate. The account in Apostolicae Curae, addressing one of the two questions that Leo put to it, shows that the general rule was reordination. This was not an absolute rule, but to state the opposite is incorrect. And the logic behind Apostoliae Curae, which I understand, but don’t agree with, is not related to Councils we Anglicans missed, but to the structure of the Edwardine Ordinal, between 1549 and 1662, and a technical issue related to sacramental intent, in the consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559. It’s not a trend, it’s de fide, for RCs, and has been, since 1896. I suggest some deeper reading on Henry (a fascinating train wreck), in J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, best book I know of on the man. And I know a lot of them.

And, I’m a traditional Continuing Anglican, Anglo-Catholic, myself.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus.

 

[GKC]

Lets just cut to the chase: All Episcopalians are Anglicans. Not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. All Churches which are members of the Anglican Communion are Anglicans. Not all Anglican Churches are members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopalians and all other Anglicans are members of Churches which derive from the Church of England, worship using one version or another of the Book of Common Prayer, and have Bishops whose Apostolic Lineages trace back to the Church of England.

Other than this, in their theology, social doctrines, worship habits, etc., etc., Episcopalians and the other Anglicans “are all over the map.”

Blessings.

Couldn’t have said it much better, myself. And all over the map, in the last 30 years or so, especially. And (pace Apostolicae Curae), Anglican apostolic lines run right back to the same place all valid apostolic succession does.,

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Remember, in addition, that Henry was declared Supreme Head of the Church in England, by his Supreme Head Act of 1534, making the CoE Erastian, which it had not been before. This was modified by Elizabeth’s Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the title and role to Supreme Governor, but left the CoE Erastian. In Herny’s life, there was a supreme authority. It wore the crown (hence his Six Articles, for example).

Whilst it is true that Henry had assumed the title of Supreme Head, it has to be read in view of the Anglican Synod’s insertion of ,“as far as the Law of God allows.” This was a year earlier in 1533. This was the mind of the Anglican Church! Further if you read Cardinal Pole’s Book you wil find that the King or Emperor as well as the Pope were considered,**"Vicars of Christ l The Emperor is the “Regal head of the Church as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed like Christ, the King of Kings; and in a General Council he has those parts exactly which Christ, as their Lord and master and King discharged”! **
[Liber De Concilio. Pole. Taken from Dixon Vol.2.pge370.]
Erastian? “The Ascendancy of the State over the Church in Ecclesiastical matters!”

The Anglican Church was not nearly as “Erastian,” as the Roman Church was in the Suburbicarian Provinces! Where the pope was ,“head of great lands provided by forgeries.”

 

[GKC]

No, we’ve done this before. Henry was miffed greatly when Synod stuck the qualifier in. Hence, when he had the Act written, in 1534, he made it quite explicit; he was Supreme Head of the Church in England, by authority of that writ, without let or hinderance. Elizabeth, wanting a slightly different polity, had the title changed. In either case, the Anglican Church was subordinate to the Throne, in the matter.

I don’t have Dixon, vol 2, though I’d love to have all 6 volumes. Are you quoting Dixon or Pole, in the sentence beginning “Regal head of the Church…”?

And the RCC was Erastian though out the Papal States, generally.

GKC;5336672:

Remember, in addition, that Henry was declared Supreme Head of the Church in England, by his Supreme Head Act of 1534, making the CoE Erastian, which it had not been before. This was modified by Elizabeth’s Act of Supremacy of 1559, which modified the title and role to Supreme Governor, but left the CoE Erastian. In Herny’s life, there was a supreme authority. It wore the crown (hence his Six Articles, for example).

Whilst it is true that Henry had assumed the title of Supreme Head, it has to be read in view of the Anglican Synod’s insertion of ,“as far as the Law of God allows.” This was a year earlier in 1533. This was the mind of the Anglican Church! Further if you read Cardinal Pole’s Book you wil find that the King or Emperor as well as the Pope were considered,**"Vicars of Christ l The Emperor is the “Regal head of the Church as the Pontiff is the Sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed like Christ, the King of Kings; and in a General Council he has those parts exactly which Christ, as their Lord and master and King discharged”! **

[Liber De Concilio. Pole. Taken from Dixon Vol.2.pge370.]
Erastian? “The Ascendancy of the State over the Church in Ecclesiastical matters!”

The Anglican Church was not nearly as “Erastian,” as the Roman Church was in the Suburbicarian Provinces! Where the pope was ,“head of great lands provided by forgeries.”

 

[GKC]

Never mind, as to the quote. I found it, possibly where you did. Pole’s words, before Trent. Interesting, too.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Rats. I was all set witha fun response before I learned the thread originated 5 years ago!

Anglicans are to Americans as Episcopalians are to Texans… Well, no - maybe Vermontans!

 

[pipper]

It’s my turn to throw my $.o2 cents in. Schism is schism, and it is evil no matter which church or Ecclesial comunity it is in.

As Roman Catholics we retuonly (sp) deride schismatic communities that derive from the Catholic church, like the society of Saint Pius V, the people who say there has been no real Pope for the last 100 years or so, and the people who gave gone into schism over the TLM.

But many are gung ho for Episcopal schism, people who call themselves “Anglican” but are outside the Angican Communion… Do some of us prefer the schismatic “Anglicans” becuase they are seen as more pure due to their hatred of homosexuals, the embrace of Ahmonson (sp) radical right politics, the rejection many of them have of female ordination?

For whatever reason “Anglican” schism is to me just as evil as schism from Rome. These “anglicans” will never cross the Tiber anyway except under their own conditions, not ours.

 

[GKC]

It’s my turn to throw my $.o2 cents in. Schism is schism, and it is evil no matter which church or Ecclesial comunity it is in.

As Roman Catholics we retuonly (sp) deride schismatic communities that derive from the Catholic church, like the society of Saint Pius V, the people who say there has been no real Pope for the last 100 years or so, and the people who gave gone into schism over the TLM.

But many are gung ho for Episcopal schism, people who call themselves “Anglican” but are outside the Angican Communion… Do some of us prefer the schismatic “Anglicans” becuase they are seen as more pure due to their hatred of homosexuals, the embrace of Ahmonson (sp) radical right politics, the rejection many of them have of female ordination?

For whatever reason “Anglican” schism is to me just as evil as schism from Rome. These “anglicans” will never cross the Tiber anyway except under their own conditions, not ours.

You will, in fact, find them crossing regularly. Do you know Fr. George Rutler? Fr. Graham Leonard?

GKC

 

[pipper]

Yes I know, but those are conversions as individuals, just like Cardianl Newman.

But how many “anglican” eclesial communities have come in En Masse?

shism is still schism and as such evil.

 

[GKC]

Yes I know, but those are conversions as individuals, just like Cardianl Newman.

But how many “anglican” eclesial communities have come in En Masse?

shism is still schism and as such evil.

Depends on what you schis out of. Communion with evil is evil. So some folks come out of it.

Of course those are individuals. The only ecclesiastical community making overtones from the “schismatic” Anglican side, to be taken in, en masse, is the Traditional Anglican Communion. And they have set no known conditions, except to be taken in, en masse, as an ecclesiastical community.

GKC

 

[pipper]

Depends on what you schis out of. Communion with evil is evil. So some folks come out of it.

Of course those are individuals. The only ecclesiastical community making overtones from the “schismatic” Anglican side, to be taken in, en masse, is the Traditional Anglican Communion. And they have set no known conditions, except to be taken in, en masse, as an ecclesiastical community.

GKC

Perhaps, but I think we define evil quite differently. I do not think that treating celibate homosexuals as human is evil. Nor do I think the rejection of sexism is evil. I really do not think ordaining women is evil just misguided.

I do think embracing Ahmonson’s radical right selfish greedy politics is evil.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps, but I think we define evil quite differently. I do not think that treating celibate homosexuals as human is evil. Nor do I think the rejection of sexism is evil. I really do not think ordaining women is evil just misguided.

I do think embracing Ahmonson’s radical right selfish greedy politics is evil.

I don’t know who Ahmonson is

I agree, as to celibate homosexuals. I agree as to sexism, though likely not with what you are thinking of. And I consider the destruction of the valid order of the Anglican clergy; the loss of apostolic succession, spreading exponentially through Anglicanism (I’m an Anglican, remember and I know about Apostolicae Curae), resulting in invalid sacraments, where valid order is required, to be evil indeed. To continue to receive the Eucharist, to be able to confess, and receive absolution, to be validly confirmed (for examples), in a milieu where the Episcopacy is compromised, required taking some steps. Out of heresy.

GKC

 

[pipper]

I don’t know who Ahmonson is

I agree, as to celibate homosexuals. I agree as to sexism, though likely not with what you are thinking of. And I consider the destruction of the valid order of the Anglican clergy; the loss of apostolic succession, spreading exponentially through Anglicanism (I’m an Anglican, remember and I know about Apostolicae Curae), resulting in invalid sacraments, where valid order is required, to be evil indeed. To continue to receive the Eucharist, to be able to confess, and receive absolution, to be validly confirmed (for examples), in a milieu where the Episcopacy is compromised, required taking some steps. Out of heresy.

GKC

I am sure about the spelling of “Ahmonson”, he is along with his organisation the driving force behind schism in all of the Main-Line Protestant churches esp. but not limited to the Presbyterian church, it is “Ahmonson” who is behind the ultra-right Presbyterian Church US, of D. James Kennedy, the ultra-right Methodists (can’t remember their name), and of course the so called “anglicans” who are not members of the Anglican Communion. Of course he is very wealthy and no doubt has dishonorable motives.
I think he and his group may well be behind the strange bedfellows relationship between the Fundamentalist Protesant Right, and some of we Catholics. When I spoke of “sexism” I had in mind the sexism that insists on calling God “he” when God is spirit and lacking gender, the exclusive use of mankind and man, when humanity and humans and persons will work just as well, the insistence for women to remain in “thier places” IE barefoot and perpetually pregnant. Women’s Ordination in the Episcopal church comes far behind.

To tell the truth, I can’t understand just why you remain in “Anglicanism” when you believe the sacraments, ordination, and Apostolic Succesion all to be invalid? We welcome you to jump the Tiber, like Cardinal Newman did before you. You are always welcome.

As you probably have surmised I am a Catholic Convert from the Episcopal Church myself, having been raised and dunked in the hyper fundamental “churches of Christ”. I converted to Catholicism when I moved away from Anglo-Catholic church I had been confirmed in to a another, middle of the road Episcopal church where they only celebrated the Holy Eucharist twice a month, back in the early 70’s, way before the schisms began, there was no bishop Spong I knew of. The RC parrish I became a member of was in the midst of Vatican II chaos. The Mass was nearly the same as Rite 2, and all was well with the world, we were opposed to abortion of course but that was before people starting “baby Killer” ar each other, but we still got the message across.

That was during the era of the Berrigan brothers,and people were glad the Mass was in English, my have we changed.

BTW, just one more thing before I at last go. Besides my advanced age, I have also had a stroke, and have Parkinsons’s Disease. So please forgive my spelling errors (like Ahmonson) and my lapses in grammar. I’m doing the best I can.

 

[GKC]

I have no idea who this individual is. But no such person has anything whatsoever to do with the Continuing Anglican movement. You are apparently a victim of some sort of strange conspiracy theory.

I don’t believe that Anglican sacraments are invalid, per se. I believe that they are invalid anywhere that apostolic succession has been lost. As in the case of those Anglicans who have ordained or consecrated (as they would say), using invalid matter. Which is why it is necessary for orthodox Anglicans to separte from them. And the early 70s was not way before the schisms began. That started with the St. Louis meeting, in 1978.

I am sorry to hear of your health problems.

GKC

I am sure about the spelling of “Ahmonson”, he is along with his organisation the driving force behind schism in all of the Main-Line Protestant churches esp. but not limited to the Presbyterian church, it is “Ahmonson” who is behind the ultra-right Presbyterian Church US, of D. James Kennedy, the ultra-right Methodists (can’t remember their name), and of course the so called “anglicans” who are not members of the Anglican Communion. Of course he is very wealthy and no doubt has dishonorable motives.
I think he and his group may well be behind the strange bedfellows relationship between the Fundamentalist Protesant Right, and some of we Catholics. When I spoke of “sexism” I had in mind the sexism that insists on calling God “he” when God is spirit and lacking gender, the exclusive use of mankind and man, when humanity and humans and persons will work just as well, the insistence for women to remain in “thier places” IE barefoot and perpetually pregnant. Women’s Ordination in the Episcopal church comes far behind.

To tell the truth, I can’t understand just why you remain in “Anglicanism” when you believe the sacraments, ordination, and Apostolic Succesion all to be invalid? We welcome you to jump the Tiber, like Cardinal Newman did before you. You are always welcome.

As you probably have surmised I am a Catholic Convert from the Episcopal Church myself, having been raised and dunked in the hyper fundamental “churches of Christ”. I converted to Catholicism when I moved away from Anglo-Catholic church I had been confirmed in to a another, middle of the road Episcopal church where they only celebrated the Holy Eucharist twice a month, back in the early 70’s, way before the schisms began, there was no bishop Spong I knew of. The RC parrish I became a member of was in the midst of Vatican II chaos. The Mass was nearly the same as Rite 2, and all was well with the world, we were opposed to abortion of course but that was before people starting “baby Killer” ar each other, but we still got the message across.

That was during the era of the Berrigan brothers,and people were glad the Mass was in English, my have we changed.

BTW, just one more thing before I at last go. Besides my advanced age, I have also had a stroke, and have Parkinsons’s Disease. So please forgive my spelling errors (like Ahmonson) and my lapses in grammar. I’m doing the best I can.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

No, we’ve done this before. Henry was miffed greatly when Synod stuck the qualifier in. Hence, when he had the Act written, in 1534, he made it quite explicit; he was Supreme Head of the Church in England, by authority of that writ, without let or hinderance. Elizabeth, wanting a slightly different polity, had the title changed. In either case, the Anglican Church was subordinate to the Throne, in the matter.

I don’t have Dixon, vol 2, though I’d love to have all 6 volumes. Are you quoting Dixon or Pole, in the sentence beginning “Regal head of the Church…”?

And the RCC was Erastian though out the Papal States, generally.

**
luckyfredsdad;5337192:
**

Bishop Cosin, the great Bishop of Durham, said in reply to someone such as yourself, on this question of the power of the monarchy over the Church in England," My ostler has as much authrity as the King!" [This is a rough translation,but true enough!] The fact is that the Church made its position clear in 1533. It was, if I’m right, the Parliament that pased the 1534 legislation. Whether we like it or not the English Church was no more Erastian than the French or the Church in the Holy Roman Empire. The King refered to was,S.Charles the Martyr!

By the way? There are some three vols., of Dixon in my edition. Of some 1700 pgs, It is about 130yrs old. It takes us from Henry V11, to Queen Mary. Is there anything missing? It would be a shame if I were to lose out! There is, I think, a copy on the Google Books spot on the internet!

I was quoting Cardinal Pole, in the last offering from Dixon…

 

[GKC]

I have no idea who this individual is. But no such person has anything whatsoever to do with the Continuing Anglican movement. You are apparently a victim of some sort of strange conspiracy theory.

I don’t believe that Anglican sacraments are invalid, per se. I believe that they are invalid anywhere that apostolic succession has been lost. As in the case of those Anglicans who have ordained or consecrated (as they would say), using invalid matter. Which is why it is necessary for orthodox Anglicans to separte from them. And the early 70s was not way before the schisms began. That started with the St. Louis meeting, in 1978.

I am sorry to hear of your health problems.

GKC

I found him. It’s Ahmanson.

theocracywatch.org/ahmanson.htm

The American Anglican Council mentioned is a late comer to the Anglican struggles, and is centered on the remaining Anglican orthodox remnant in the Episcopal Church. The Continuing Anglican movement out-dates it by 20 odd years. I only wish Mr. Ahmanson had dropped some loose change on the Continuum, back in 1978. OTOH, I certainly applaud his actions, with respect to the TEC orthodox. Good for him.

GKC