G
GKC
Guest
This is, indeed, the gentleman of whom I spoke.
Thanks, David.
GKC
Thanks, David.
GKC
- Status
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
David…thanks for posting. It was indeed you whom I say on the Journey Home.
I am sure ICAB was not to happy about the lack of adherence by the CEC to the agreement. On top of that acording to the CEC, they are one of the fastest growing denominations in Braizl (one parish a month - many averaging 750 -1000 members).
I read many perspectives of the CEC crisis and a lot (according to the posters) seemed to have to do with people establishing their own little fifedoms and quality going out the window in favor of who you know, etc. It was rather sad. Not to mention the alleged visions of Adler. I did notice that many parishes are gone.
I do not recall on the Journey Home what you said you do now (and you certainly do not have to here if you don’t like).
Again, thank you for your insight.
Rev North
I am sure ICAB was not to happy about the lack of adherence by the CEC to the agreement. On top of that acording to the CEC, they are one of the fastest growing denominations in Braizl (one parish a month - many averaging 750 -1000 members).
I read many perspectives of the CEC crisis and a lot (according to the posters) seemed to have to do with people establishing their own little fifedoms and quality going out the window in favor of who you know, etc. It was rather sad. Not to mention the alleged visions of Adler. I did notice that many parishes are gone.
I do not recall on the Journey Home what you said you do now (and you certainly do not have to here if you don’t like).
Again, thank you for your insight.
Rev North
D
David_Zampino
Guest
I suspected so – but didn’t want to presume, as there have been a couple of others over the years as well.
I would dispute that figure as wishful thinking in the extreme. Any numbers coming out of CEC headquarters in San Clemente should be taken with great suspicion.
One of the points of the 1997 agreement was that the CEC would not plant churches in Brazil. Not only did the CEC violate their end of the bargain, but their “House of Bishops” is now denying that a written agreement existed in the first place.
According to their own figures, they are down to about 4,000 communicants in the US – of which probably 1/3 are clergy and clergy family members. If you are interested in more information, take a look at my own blog:
papaz.blogspot.com/
If you want a bit of a broader perspective, take a look at this forum:
forum.ancient-future.net/
With the forum, you will have to look at the closed threads, as most of the CEC discussions have been closed down. If you want to contact me privately, please feel free to do so.
Right now, I teach theology at Marquette University, and am the Coordinator for Religious Education at my parish. As of next Tuesday, I will be working full-time for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the John Paull II Center for the New Evangelization.
No worries.
Blessings,
David
G
GKC
Guest
And don’t be a stranger.
GKC
GKC
J
JoyforCatholic
Guest
So far my journey into the Church has NOT lead me to believe that Catholics despise Anglicans.
If anything, it revealed to me an ugly side of certain Anglicans (not all of course) who in reality seem to despise and dislike Catholics all the while they seem to proclaim that they are “more Catholic than the Pope!”
I left the Continuing Anglican Movement; for the time being I will not reference which specific jurisdiction however it is one of the Big Three that came out of the Denver Consecrations in the later 1970’s as a response to the Prayer Book and Liturgical Changes of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
I spent enough time in it and became acquainted with numerous clergy enough to determine that unfortunately there is something of an “English Nationalism” that has permeated it which holds at its core this real disdain for the Catholic Church-- I believe it is really disdain for the authority of the Holy Father.
Read any books by Belloc, Cardinal Newman and Monsignor R. Knox and you’ll find the truth of Anglicanism. I’d always thought that it was the C of E that made England what she is in terms of her “historical greatness”. It was not, it was Catholic Church which is not the Church OF England but the Church IN England.
In Christ the Lord,
If anything, it revealed to me an ugly side of certain Anglicans (not all of course) who in reality seem to despise and dislike Catholics all the while they seem to proclaim that they are “more Catholic than the Pope!”
I left the Continuing Anglican Movement; for the time being I will not reference which specific jurisdiction however it is one of the Big Three that came out of the Denver Consecrations in the later 1970’s as a response to the Prayer Book and Liturgical Changes of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
I spent enough time in it and became acquainted with numerous clergy enough to determine that unfortunately there is something of an “English Nationalism” that has permeated it which holds at its core this real disdain for the Catholic Church-- I believe it is really disdain for the authority of the Holy Father.
Read any books by Belloc, Cardinal Newman and Monsignor R. Knox and you’ll find the truth of Anglicanism. I’d always thought that it was the C of E that made England what she is in terms of her “historical greatness”. It was not, it was Catholic Church which is not the Church OF England but the Church IN England.
In Christ the Lord,
S
Sixtus
Guest
Absolutely not, no way!
The idea is preposterous.
Catholics who follow the Lord do not despise anyone, least of all our beloved seperated brethren, where the emphasis is on ‘brethren’ not ‘seperated’
The idea is preposterous.
Catholics who follow the Lord do not despise anyone, least of all our beloved seperated brethren, where the emphasis is on ‘brethren’ not ‘seperated’
P
Proletarian
Guest
We don’t despise Anglicans. However we do despise Anglicanism; more specifically we despise any aspect of Anglicanism that is a deviation from the true faith that was entrusted to the Catholic Church, such deviations are the work of the great deceiver.
C
Contarini
Guest
From this juxtaposition it’s clear that you do not think Catholics despise Anglicans for the simple reason that you have come to despise Anglicans (or more precisely Anglicanism) yourself. You would not cite these three writers, especially Belloc, as giving “the truth of Anglicanism” if you had any respect for it.
This of course does not address the question of whether Anglicanism (as distinct from the people in it) ought to be despised. Simply the question of fact as to whether many Catholics (particularly ex-Anglicans) do or do not despise it. Clearly many of you do.
Edwin
A
angelusm
Guest
I don’t despise them. I just feel sorry for Anglican Community because they have gone very far away from the Gospel (women priesthood, gay preachers who marry each other, Anglicanism as a state religion while Jesus wants us to separate state from religion). They are not really sure about what Eucharist is - I know it sounds ridiculous but that’s what I found in Wikipedia. Anglicans persecuted the Catholic Church until XIX century. Even now they still discriminate us - king or queen cannot marry a Catholic. Generally Anglican identity is anticatholic. It’s caused by their ignorance and old myths.
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
I encountered it a bit with a Polish priest but certainly not among the vast majority of Roman Catholics. I think there is a feeling that the Anglican Church has a sense of superiority (that has been voiced here by some Catholics and by statements made by Bishop Schori). There may even be a sense of what if the Anglicans had not split. That is the nation that founded the United States (imagine the ramifications), it is the nation that built the largest empire the world have ever known, and to quote from the Anglican Province of Christ the King:
*The Faith that produced…
the King James Bible
most of Western Christendom’s great church music
William Shakespeare, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, John Donne, George Herbert, Jeremy Taylor, Jonathan Swift, George Fredric Handel, William Law, George Berkeley, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, John Newton, William Wilberforce, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Keble, Charles Dickens, Florence Nightingale, Evelyn Underhill, Charles Williams, Dorothy Sayers, C. S. Lewis, and T. S. Eliot
eleven former U. S. presidents and most of our nation’s founding fathers *It was quite a loss to Catholicism. But on the whole the vast majority of Roman Catholics I have ever met have thought of Anglicans as “sort of similar to us”. No animosity.
Rev North
J
JoyforCatholic
Guest
Edwin- you fail to read my post:
Read my statement, “So far, MY journey” it says-- I don’t pretend to know the hearts of Anglicans as you seem to clearly know mine when you insist that I must despise them. What blanket presumption you must have to think you know my heart and that I despise Anglicans.
Any “respect” I had for “Anglicanism” was lost as a result of being told I was “lost” or “in jeopardy” for becoming a Catholic. My experience in the “continuing church movement” showed me that there really is (among a great deal of CC Clergy perhaps, not so much the laity) a great deal of animus against the Catholic Church in their circles. Where do I translate this into my “despising Anglicans”?
Just as Cardinal Newman had to defend himself against the calumny leveled at him I seem to have to defend myself against similar ones from you, an admitted Episcopalian.
Many of the Anglican Clergy with whom I interacted had nothing charitable to say about the Catholic Church except to say that She has erred and is erring in matters of faith and doctrine and that they (the CC of Anglicanism) has it all right and correct. Again what presumption, but then again that is a very common thing amongst Anglicans I have found.
I still have many good friends who are Anglicans and I would never “despise” them or their faith. I despise the “revision” of history (of course the winners of history write the history books) that is perpetuated by the C of E that somehow Mary Tudor was a madwoman, Mary Stuart a whore and Elizabeth the Virgin Queen was the savior of the English People and therefore the root of all “British Greatness”.
I mentioned Belloc specifically because he, as someone trained in history AND political economy, aptly takes on this notion. Two of the books that helped convince me of the “Revision of British History” were How the Reformation Happened and Characters of the Reformation (especially the latter book).
As Belloc points out in typical erudition, the dissolution of the Church in Britain and sacking of the monasteries (orderd by the “good Catholic Prince” Henry VIII and overseen by Thomas Cromwell, the great uncle of the future dictator Oliver) created a new ruling class (from which men such as William Cecil, Elizabeth’s Lord Chancellor rose) who had as their primary concern the DEFENSE of their new found wealth-- therefore they blocked any notion of reconciliation with the Church. To have entered into reconciliation would have necessitated a “discussion” at the very least, about that wealth.
No Edwin, I don’t “despise” Anglicans. I do “despise” the revision of history that seems to place the Catholic Church (and royals who held to The Faith) in a light that would lead to the conclusion that they, the Church, were responsible for the actions of Henry VIII and Cromwell and Cecil and others when it was nothing more than good old fashioned greed.
St. Paul was right, it really is the “LOVE of Money” that is the root of evil.
I do expect that many Anglicans will be saved (as I’ve said on other posts and threads, who am I to say God cannot or does not work through other channels??? That is PRESUMPTION on MY PART if I were to say that and God Forbid it!)
My “EXPERIENCE” however is what lead me to say that there seems to be a despising on the part of many Anglicans (at least those with whom I interacted) of Catholics.
Perhaps the title of this thread is too broad-- really, it almost seems like a stereotypical type of statement to begin with.
In Christ the Lord,
M
mgrfin
Guest
Rev,’
You got it backwards. Anglicans might consider themselves very much like us. We don’t think that way. As far as we are concerned, they are heretics like the rest of Protestants, we just don’t say it out loud.
peace
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
I was not going to respond anymore to you after our last strange dialogue but this is too rich. If you cannot see the irony in this response after your last statement on the other thread. Too rich
Develop some depth
Rev North
G
GKC
Guest
This thread seemed to be numbered among the missing for awhile. I sort of remember that it had a post embedded in it that seemed to express some doubt on whether Lewis and Eliot were Anglicans. But I may be wrong.
GKC
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
JoyforCatholic,
Apologise greatly for what you experienced when converting. Apparently you ran into a a nest of anti-Catholic Continuers. My own clergy is far different. Again, apologies.
Differ slightly on Bellc as historian, while revering the man as a writer and controversalist. CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION was the 2nd book of his I bought and read, beginning a 40+ year hobbby of collecting him.
And, in a very brief comment,. in a sense, yes, the RCC is responsible for what Henry originally did, taking the Church in England private. Which was a political repsonse to a political action in the refusal to grant the decree of nullity. A complicated historical situation, from many angles.
And, yet again, apologies for your experiences.
In great haste,
GKC
*posterus traditus Anglicanus *
Apologise greatly for what you experienced when converting. Apparently you ran into a a nest of anti-Catholic Continuers. My own clergy is far different. Again, apologies.
Differ slightly on Bellc as historian, while revering the man as a writer and controversalist. CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION was the 2nd book of his I bought and read, beginning a 40+ year hobbby of collecting him.
And, in a very brief comment,. in a sense, yes, the RCC is responsible for what Henry originally did, taking the Church in England private. Which was a political repsonse to a political action in the refusal to grant the decree of nullity. A complicated historical situation, from many angles.
And, yet again, apologies for your experiences.
In great haste,
GKC
*posterus traditus Anglicanus *
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it’s simply that I did read your post. Note that I explicitly reworded the OP to say “Anglicanism.” I didn’t accuse you of despising people.
That is all I said–that you clearly have lost all respect for Anglicanism. So in your first paragraph you accuse me of presumption and so forth, and in your second say that I’m right. I am not mind-reading, simply post-reading. And clearly reading accurately.
Interesting. I’ve never heard this from an Episcopalian. I know some evangelical Episcopalians who are basically friendly toward Catholicism on moral issues but say they could never join it, and I know liberal Episcopalians who say that “Rome” is oppressive and patriarchal and so on–but I’ve never heard any Episcopalian–or any Anglican that I can think of (not counting books I’ve read by very conservative C of E evangelicals)–say that becoming Catholic would jeopardize one’s salvation.
I will take your word for this. It is not my experience, but I don’t have a lot of experience with CC clergy. And I was surprised in speaking some years ago to the wife of the then ACC archbishop to discover that she was quite strongly opposed to asking for the intercessions of the Blessed Virgin. This made me think that Continuing Anglicans were a lot more Protestant than they want to admit. And since they are generally a rather fierce (and often rather snooty–my apologies, GKC, I’m not talking about you) bunch, I’m not entirely surprised to hear this, though I am disappointed.
Maybe you should try reading some history written after about 1960. This version of history is completely outdated, and the current “revisionists” are in essential agreement with Belloc’s understanding of the English Reformation (though of course they are far more careful and professional in how they make their arguments). I find it amusing that Catholics continue to flail at this straw man, which practically no historians take seriously (Diarmaid MacCulloch is probably the most prominent historian of the English Reformation who resists the revisionist interpretation, though he doesn’t deny it entirely by any means, and certainly doesn’t hold to the view you just described in such lurid terms.) However, as usual with scholarship the blame lies with those who have failed to transmit recent scholarship to nonspecialists.
Duffy, Scarisbrick, or Haigh are better sources in terms of scholarship. Belloc paints with very broad strokes and is a propagandist rather than a historian. But as I said he was certainly right about a lot of things that historians of his day were ignoring, so his demolition work was needed at the time (and is certainly still entertaining).
I agree. And while I did take care to say in my post that I was speaking of your attitude to “Anglicanism” and not “Anglicans,” I can understand why you would respond in terms of the OP instead of my reformulation.
In Christ,
Edwin
G
GKC
Guest
“And since they are generally a rather fierce (and often rather snooty–my apologies, GKC, I’m not talking about you) bunch, I’m not entirely surprised to hear this, though I am disappointed.”
S’allright. Mileage varies, no doubt. It is far otherwise in my neck of the woods, Prayers for Benedict, intercession of the BVM, Angelus, etc.
GKC
S’allright. Mileage varies, no doubt. It is far otherwise in my neck of the woods, Prayers for Benedict, intercession of the BVM, Angelus, etc.
GKC
C
Contarini
Guest
I was apologizing for the “fierce and snooty” generalization, and I should clarify that I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to be fierce. My point was simply that while I haven’t encountered anti-Catholic Continuers, I could imagine Continuers who basically disliked everybody else, including Catholics. And I certainly have gotten the impression that many Continuers don’t think much of contemporary American Catholicism, particularly its liturgy and its academic commitment to higher criticism (the most hostile description of Catholicism I’ve ever heard from a Continuer was from an ex-Catholic priest in the Holy Catholic Church, Anglican Rite, who worked at a Catholic university and found most Catholics unacceptably liberal, which to him showed that “Rome” was in little better shape than the Episcopal Church and was not a safe haven for those of us dissatisfied with GC2003 and its aftermath).
I should add that Anglicans in general seem to be more anti-Catholic in the Northeast than in the South. In the South they have a common enemy with Catholics–Protestant fundamentalism. In the Northeast Catholics are the dominant group and this stirs up a lot of resentment. I was amazed at how hostile to Catholicism the mainline Episcopalians and Methodists in New Jersey were.
I don’t know where our Joyful friend lives, so this may be irrelevant!
Edwin
Edwin
J
JoyforCatholic
Guest
My apoligies Edwin if the prior post seemed a bit harsh; it’s just that I’ve taken quite a bit of “flak” from the CC types recently (of the jurisdiction from which I came); I don’t know who GKC is but thank you for your words as well.
I will differ however on several statements-- First on our friend Belloc; granted that although he may be a bit “coarse” he is certainly not a type for “political correctness”. IF he states the truth then how he states it is not as important as what he states. As for Mr. MacCulloch, I am not so sure I would be ready to categorize him as free of the “revisions” of history; granted I have his rather large tome on the Reformation (given as a gift) setting on my desk and yet to be read however I seem to recall having been given varying opinions on him.
As for the assertion GK: “in a sense, yes, the RCC is responsible for what Henry originally did, taking the Church in England private. Which was a political repsonse to a political action in the refusal to grant the decree of nullity.”—
Regarding this I would simply say that at what point was the Catholic Church (I’m sorry, the term ROMAN Catholic Church is really a creation again of Anglicans although many Catholics themselves have come to accept it today as a normal statement) bound to give in to the passionate lusts of a King who was certainly no “good Catholic husband” in the sense that he was an adulterer (something I think most historians are in agreement on)?
To say the Catholic Church is responsible for Henry VII “taking the C of E private” is akin to saying that the parent who tells their child to keep their hand out of the cookie jar is responsible for the child taking the cookie! While there are indeed perhaps good points of where the Church could have done things differently with Henry Tudor (himself the descendant of illegitimates to the throne; the Plantagenants were the Royal Bloodline of Britain) the facts remain quite clear:
- Henry facilitated the break with the Catholic Church
- Cranmer (who could be considered an apostate especially given his views on the Mass and the Real Presence-- read Bp. Gardiner’s refutations) granted the needed annulment to satisfy the lusts of Henry for Anne Boleyn and Anne Boleyn for the Throne.
- Henry alowed for the Supression of the Monasteries and the wholesale pillaging of the Church.
I think that while Henry “may have” had some practical political grounds for requesting an annulment (to facilitate the birth of a male heir) what followed in the Suppression of the Church in England could never be justified. The theft of the Church’s wealth for redistribution to the new “upper class” of Henry’s choosing (sycophants most likely) could never be justified as a valid response to the Vatican’s refusal to grant an annulment.If anything, the argument I was always given by CC Anglicans that Rome was DEAD WRONG for not granting the annulment because Henry was merely concerned about the future peace of the Realm doesn’t hold water either.
Since when is the Church, a Divine Institution, supposed to be at the disposal of the State; especially when The State is calling for the legitimization of an action which flies directly in the face of the Church’s teachings (i.e. the granting of an annulment so the King may merely remarry for his own purposes). Sorry, I just don’t buy it and in reality, I suppose many good Anglicans don’t buy it either.
My experience in the CC Movement (not ECUSA or TEC or whatever it’s known by today) jurisdiction lead me to understand that there are many difficulties in holding up the historical claims of Anglicanism and furthermore, the splintering of the Canterbury Communion which we are witnessing today is simply the natural and logical conclusion of Anglicanism.
So it is not a “despising” of Anglicanism that this former Anglican has, it’s really pity and sadness at the end of the day.
Also for the record, I am in the Midwestern US and was in a jurisdiction with a presence there. Also for the record, I believe there will be Anglicans in Heaven; my point in addressing this whole thread is only to give my experience thus far and I will say that both Edwin and GKC are at least more charitable to me than what I have encountered-- perhaps because Edwin is an Episcopalian where at least they don’t get wrapped up in some of the more radical notions of High Churchmanship that I encountered in that one particular corner of the CC Movement (I’d also imagine GKC is NOT in that same corner
In Christ the Lord,
G
GKC
Guest
“Most Anglicans seem to have trouble with # 3 in answering it from what I’ve found. In my opinion, humble as it is (Believe it or not I think that while Henry “may have” had some practical political grounds for requesting an annulment (to facilitate the birth of a male heir) what followed in the Suppression of the Church in England could never be justified. The theft of the Church’s wealth for redistribution to the new “upper class” of Henry’s choosing (sycophants most likely) could never be justified as a valid response to the Vatican’s refusal to grant an annulment.”
We’re likely not disagreeing, in essence. Henry’s search for a decree of nullity is one of my hobbies. I’ve done it to death here, before (and might again), but my time is shirt. Maybe I can C&P myself. One short statement: the system of impediments, annulments and dispensations in the 16th century was specifically set up to permit 2 things to happen at once, if necessary. The Church needed to control marriage as a sacrament and the secular society needed to make and break dynastic marriges. Hence the existing system, bloated and convoluted, as Trent undertook to reform it. Henry asked what was commonplace at the time, and in a commmonplace situation (as with his sister, almost simultaneously), the decree of nullity would have been granted. But Henry’s case was not commonplace. Few wifes in such a situation have the Holy Roman Emperor in the family. Over-riding real-politics aside, Henry’s case was reasonably strong, and the case Wolsey urged him to advance, that of an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, was stronger yet. Both cases certainly met the standards of the day. But both were trumped. An Emperor trumps a King, except in his own house. And Henry reacted politically, where he could do so successfully.
As to Belloc, you can not have a higher opinion of the man than I do (after all, I have a record of him singing). But to rely solely upon him is akin to relying solely upon Froude. And at least Froude footnoted.
Sorry for the hasty reply, and pleased to speak with you.
GKC
We’re likely not disagreeing, in essence. Henry’s search for a decree of nullity is one of my hobbies. I’ve done it to death here, before (and might again), but my time is shirt. Maybe I can C&P myself. One short statement: the system of impediments, annulments and dispensations in the 16th century was specifically set up to permit 2 things to happen at once, if necessary. The Church needed to control marriage as a sacrament and the secular society needed to make and break dynastic marriges. Hence the existing system, bloated and convoluted, as Trent undertook to reform it. Henry asked what was commonplace at the time, and in a commmonplace situation (as with his sister, almost simultaneously), the decree of nullity would have been granted. But Henry’s case was not commonplace. Few wifes in such a situation have the Holy Roman Emperor in the family. Over-riding real-politics aside, Henry’s case was reasonably strong, and the case Wolsey urged him to advance, that of an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, was stronger yet. Both cases certainly met the standards of the day. But both were trumped. An Emperor trumps a King, except in his own house. And Henry reacted politically, where he could do so successfully.
As to Belloc, you can not have a higher opinion of the man than I do (after all, I have a record of him singing). But to rely solely upon him is akin to relying solely upon Froude. And at least Froude footnoted.
Sorry for the hasty reply, and pleased to speak with you.
GKC
- Status