Episcopal Church

[Contarini]

The rector of a parish (Iowa City) I left in TEC 6 years ago had no problem with the Gnostic gospels. In fact, he preached from the gospel of Thomas at a choral evensong. The appointed one was from John, but was explained John was offensive to the Jews. TEC just loves “new age” everything. When “Da Vinci Code” came out they all went gaga. I actually think they believed Dan Brown’s novel to be true.

Who are “they”? I’m Episcopalian, and I know a lot of Episcopalians, and we don’t think anything so silly.

Lay off the caricature and the quality of the discussion will improve immensely.

but if you talk to these folks, they tend not to believe in moral absolutes and are relativistic to the core. Just what is the point?

Clearly, for you it’s to make sweeping caricatures on the basis of (necessarily) very limited evidence.

Instead of trying to be all things to all people, the Catholic Church under PBXVI shows promise for a truer albeit smaller Church.

Ah yes, the great campaign to turn Catholicism into the mirror image of a fundamentalist sect. (This is probably just as unfair as the claim that Episcopalians are Unitarians with vestments, I admit.)

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

Who are “they”? I’m Episcopalian, and I know a lot of Episcopalians, and we don’t think anything so silly.

Lay off the caricature and the quality of the discussion will improve immensely.

Clearly, for you it’s to make sweeping caricatures on the basis of (necessarily) very limited evidence.

Ah yes, the great campaign to turn Catholicism into the mirror image of a fundamentalist sect. (This is probably just as unfair as the claim that Episcopalians are Unitarians with vestments, I admit.)

Edwin

This thread witnesses to the fact that in The Episcopal Church, one’s faith expression and experience are almost entirely parish-based. I recall a humorous poem by S. J. Forrest – probably written in the 1930s or '40s, describing the hurdles a visiting clergyman must leap when asked to substitute at an unfamiliar parish.

What’s The Use?
by S.J. Forrest
transcribed by Father James Siemens, AF

‘Oh just the usual thing you know; the BCP all through,
Just pure and unadulterated 1662;
A minimum of wise interpolations from the Missal,
The Kyrie in Greek, the proper Collects and Epistles,
The Secret and the Canon and the Dominus Vobiscum,
(Three aves and a salve at the end would not amiss come);
To the “militant” and “trudle” there is little need to cling,
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; we’re C of E of course,
But beautify the service from a mediaeval source,
With various processions, and in case you shouldn’t know,
There are tunicled assistants who will tell you where to go;
And should you in bewilderment liturgically falter,
Just make a little circumambulation of the altar.
The blessing, like a bishop, you majestically sing;
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; but very up to date,
Our basis is the liturgy of 1928,
With lots of local colouring and topical appeal,
And much high-hearted happiness, to make the service real;
Our thoughts on high to sun and sky, to trees and birds and brooks,
Our altar nearly hidden in a library of books;
The Nunc Dimittis, finally “God Save The Queen” we sing;
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know, we trust that you’ll be able
To mingle with the reredos and stand behind the Table;
(For clergymen who celebrate and face the congregation,
Must pass a stringent glamour-test before their ordination!)
Patristic ceremonial; economy of gesture,
Though balanced by a certain superfluity of vesture;
With lots of flanking presbyters all gathered in a ring,
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’
​

 

[GKC]

This thread witnesses to the fact that in The Episcopal Church, one’s faith expression and experience are almost entirely parish-based. I recall a humorous poem by S. J. Forrest – probably written in the 1930s or '40s, describing the hurdles a visiting clergyman must leap when asked to substitute at an unfamiliar parish.

What’s The Use?
by S.J. Forrest
transcribed by Father James Siemens, AF

‘Oh just the usual thing you know; the BCP all through,
Just pure and unadulterated 1662;
A minimum of wise interpolations from the Missal,
The Kyrie in Greek, the proper Collects and Epistles,
The Secret and the Canon and the Dominus Vobiscum,
(Three aves and a salve at the end would not amiss come);
To the “militant” and “trudle” there is little need to cling,
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; we’re C of E of course,
But beautify the service from a mediaeval source,
With various processions, and in case you shouldn’t know,
There are tunicled assistants who will tell you where to go;
And should you in bewilderment liturgically falter,
Just make a little circumambulation of the altar.
The blessing, like a bishop, you majestically sing;
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; but very up to date,
Our basis is the liturgy of 1928,
With lots of local colouring and topical appeal,
And much high-hearted happiness, to make the service real;
Our thoughts on high to sun and sky, to trees and birds and brooks,
Our altar nearly hidden in a library of books;
The Nunc Dimittis, finally “God Save The Queen” we sing;
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know, we trust that you’ll be able
To mingle with the reredos and stand behind the Table;
(For clergymen who celebrate and face the congregation,
Must pass a stringent glamour-test before their ordination!)
Patristic ceremonial; economy of gesture,
Though balanced by a certain superfluity of vesture;
With lots of flanking presbyters all gathered in a ring,
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’
​

Brilliant. I must forward that to my rector.

GKC

 

[emeraldcoast]

mercygate "This thread witnesses to the fact that in The Episcopal Church, one’s faith expression and experience are almost entirely parish-based. "

I surely hope that you are not implying that all Roman Catholic Parishes dance to the same beat…

God Bless!

 

[mercygate]

mercygate "This thread witnesses to the fact that in The Episcopal Church, one’s faith expression and experience are almost entirely parish-based. "

I surely hope that you are not implying that all Roman Catholic Parishes dance to the same beat…

God Bless!

Despite differences in parishes, there is a lot more consistency (for better and worse) in Catholic worship than in the Episcopal Church. There is certainly more consistency in doctrine. Whatever individuals may hold, the Catechism is there to keep any local insanity from taking over completely.

 

[LynnGM]

Personal story (Take what you like and leave the rest)

I switched from the Roman Catholic church, the faith of my birth, to the Episcopal Church in college. I thought I was joining a church that fit my needs. (I was 21, and very ignorant of the True Faith.)

Anyway, I had an awesome honeymoon with TEC. I was super involved in my new TEC parish and campus ministry.

Soon, though, the honeymoon ended. I missed the incredible devotion to our LORD that the RC students and staff had. A small group came together for Daily Mass. Many devout students attended bible studies and other educational events. I missed that beauty.

Because in my TEC parish and ministry, the devotion was to LIBERALISM and ELITISM. I missed GOD so much. The Sunday mass was great, the Wednesday noon mass was spiritually helpfully. I craved support for my personal devotions. When you are a college student in your early 20s, you want supportive friends. I missed seeing girls praying before and after mass, missed the importance of the Sacraments.

I did join a few other TEC parishes, which did not help me. Even in a particularly “high Anglican parish”, I still found all sorts of elitism and snarkiness. Plus, there wasn’t adherence to the Faith.

I returned to the RC church a few years ago. Although I do have struggle with certain aspects of the Faith, I remain anchored in my Catholicism. (It helps to be married to a strident Catholic.)

To the OP, I’d recommend NOT acting on the desire to go to TEC. Keep praying for an increase in your RC faith.

 

[elgar]

Despite differences in parishes, there is a lot more consistency (for better and worse) in Catholic worship than in the Episcopal Church. There is certainly more consistency in doctrine. Whatever individuals may hold, the Catechism is there to keep any local insanity from taking over completely.

Agreed. Take fore example, issues like women’s ordination and married priests. Progressive Catholics may favor one or both, but in reality ain’t gonna happen–especially WO.

OTOH in TEC, if things don’t go the way of those in charge or not moving fast enough, they tend to hijack the process and pretty much force it on everyone. Women’s ordination is a good example along with ignoring the moratoria on same sex blessings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Do you think the Gnostics were right?

Edwin

Actually I don’t think its a matter of being right or wrong. On balance I find their theology wanting, but I value it just the same. They were an important element with an important view. Their interpretation while not mine in many respects adds to our total picture of both Jesus, God and the environment of the time.

It is most important in understanding the actions of some Christians. The contribute as I said to the total picture and should not be dismissed simply with calls of heretic.

I’m not sure what exactly was your point. These types of questions I find are usually asked to set up some bigger argument.

I am not sure what type of Anglicanism you adhere to. But apparently you are quite unhappy with the general American Episcopal church. May I presume you disfavor women and gay ordination?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The rector of a parish (Iowa City) I left in TEC 6 years ago had no problem with the Gnostic gospels. In fact, he preached from the gospel of Thomas at a choral evensong. The appointed one was from John, but was explained John was offensive to the Jews. TEC just loves “new age” everything. When “Da Vinci Code” came out they all went gaga. I actually think they believed Dan Brown’s novel to be true. More followed like Communion to everyone regardless of Baptism in the name of the Trinity. The same rector celebrates the “winter solstice” with a drum service. You just can’t make this stuff up.

What I find amusing is how on the surface they appear to be Catholic and traditional with all the trappings of vestments, bells, occasional incense, processions, retreats, genuflecting, etc., but if you talk to these folks, they tend not to believe in moral absolutes and are relativistic to the core. Just what is the point? Also, there was a very cozy relationship with the Unitarians down the street.

I’ve been everything from RC, Lutheran to Episcopalian and yes, the pews are dominated by former catholics. The Catholic church of the 1950s was huge but the folks were not secure in their faith. It didn’t take much for the house to come down with the shake down in the radical 60s and 70s. Instead of trying to be all things to all people, the Catholic Church under PBXVI shows promise for a truer albeit smaller Church.

I am just sickened that some few RCC and non RCC find it necessary to belittle other faith traditions and literally make fun of them for sport it seems. If it is not what you wish, look elsewhere, but on what grounds do you belittle those who find happiness where they are? I find this so very against Jesus’ teaching that I am shocked beyond belief actually. Do you not see the pharasidic tone? All people talk about is form here. Almost never substance. Its quite revealing.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Who are “they”? I’m Episcopalian, and I know a lot of Episcopalians, and we don’t think anything so silly.

Lay off the caricature and the quality of the discussion will improve immensely.

You are guilty of the same thing. You call it silly! Can’t you see you are doing the same thing? You are angry because he includes you by his broadness, but you have laid your own label on those who don’t agree with you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This thread witnesses to the fact that in The Episcopal Church, one’s faith expression and experience are almost entirely parish-based. I recall a humorous poem by S. J. Forrest – probably written in the 1930s or '40s, describing the hurdles a visiting clergyman must leap when asked to substitute at an unfamiliar parish.

What’s The Use?
by S.J. Forrest
transcribed by Father James Siemens, AF

‘Oh just the usual thing you know; the BCP all through,
Just pure and unadulterated 1662;
A minimum of wise interpolations from the Missal,
The Kyrie in Greek, the proper Collects and Epistles,
The Secret and the Canon and the Dominus Vobiscum,
(Three aves and a salve at the end would not amiss come);
To the “militant” and “trudle” there is little need to cling,
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; we’re C of E of course,
But beautify the service from a mediaeval source,
With various processions, and in case you shouldn’t know,
There are tunicled assistants who will tell you where to go;
And should you in bewilderment liturgically falter,
Just make a little circumambulation of the altar.
The blessing, like a bishop, you majestically sing;
But apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know; but very up to date,
Our basis is the liturgy of 1928,
With lots of local colouring and topical appeal,
And much high-hearted happiness, to make the service real;
Our thoughts on high to sun and sky, to trees and birds and brooks,
Our altar nearly hidden in a library of books;
The Nunc Dimittis, finally “God Save The Queen” we sing;
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’

‘Oh, just the usual thing you know, we trust that you’ll be able
To mingle with the reredos and stand behind the Table;
(For clergymen who celebrate and face the congregation,
Must pass a stringent glamour-test before their ordination!)
Patristic ceremonial; economy of gesture,
Though balanced by a certain superfluity of vesture;
With lots of flanking presbyters all gathered in a ring,
But, apart from these exceptions, just the ordinary thing.’
​

But this is no different that the RCC. Look around this forum and see all the lamenting about “liberal” priests, liberal religous, poor liturgy, poor catechism teaching, etc etc etc. I dare say this is true to a large degree in every church in the land. People either love their church as doing it exactly right, or lament and rail that it is not doing it properly. This forum is filled with that complaint from Catholics decrying their bishops, archbishops, the pope on occassion, and certainly priests, college professors, theologians etc. To say nothing of the rank and file Catholic. Only this tiny percent of people hear who have got it right are right, everyone else in the entire world is wrong. Even the pope was supposed to excommunicate Pelosi and didn’t. Nobody here apparently ever stops to think they might be wrong about a thing or two.

The rest of us are all to clear of our own limitations, subjection to error and lack of knowledge. We are tolerant of others because of that fact. We don’t claim to know everything. We are doing our best. Perhaps those of you who are so certain you are so perfectly right, should band together in your own virtual church and then you can have everything the perfect way you believe it should be.

Of course, you is generic. I have no the slightest idea what you personally believe and mean no disrespect to you at all. I am speaking of the generic CAF catholic who is always at pains to inform me I waste my time going to church at all, since it means nothing to God according to them. The bottom line, there is no place where where any faith is all on the same page in every respect.

 

[Contarini]

You are guilty of the same thing. You call it silly! Can’t you see you are doing the same thing? You are angry because he includes you by his broadness, but you have laid your own label on those who don’t agree with you.

Perhaps you can point out where I have generalized about an entire group of people without justification. I will gladly apologize when shown that I’m wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually I don’t think its a matter of being right or wrong.

I see.

On balance I find their theology wanting, but I value it just the same.

Value it for what?

They were an important element with an important view.

Important how? Important for what?

Their interpretation while not mine in many respects adds to our total picture of both Jesus, God and the environment of the time.

What specifically do they add?

Now to answer my own questions: I find a great deal of beauty in some Gnostic texts, such as “Thunder, Perfect Mind,” the “Hymn of the Pearl,” and (if you count it as Gnostic) the Gospel of Thomas. I value the “Hymn of the Pearl’s” poetic narrative of the human person as a prince in exile. I value the Gospel of Thomas’s cryptic evocation of Christ’s presence within us and indeed within all reality. But important aspects of their understanding of human nature, salvation, and the person and work of Jesus is not something I can recognize (or that Christians have historically recognized) as within the boundaries of the faith I have received. That doesn’t mean that they are without value–I value texts from many different religions. But they don’t flesh out the diversity of Christianity (if Christianity is understood as one faith making truth claims–if Christianity is just a grab bag of different traditions, then it’s a different story).

It is most important in understanding the actions of some Christians.

That’s a vague statement, but as far as it goes I agree with it.

The contribute as I said to the total picture

The total picture of Greco-Roman religion, yes. The total picture of human expressions of religious values, yes. The total picture of religious movements inspired in some way by Jesus of Nazareth, yes. But not the total picture of the religion which I profess and practice and refer to conveniently as “Christianity.”

and should not be dismissed simply with calls of heretic.

This is loaded language. If what you are saying is that Gnosticism should not be considered heretical, then I disagree. The real incarnation of Christ as a historical human being is central to my faith. The belief that this world is the good creation of the true God is central to my faith. The belief that the human body is God’s good creation and will be raised again is central to my faith. And when I say “my faith,” I don’t just mean the personal beliefs that are important to me. I mean the faith that I was taught as a child, and which is the common heritage of Christians going back 2000 years. I mean the faith that the Christian communion to which we both belong publicly professes.

The Gnostics weren’t just “dismissed.” They were condemned as heretics for perfectly good reasons. That doesn’t mean that their orthodox antagonists were always fair, or that the means used to defeat Gnosticism were always good ones (though I am not aware of a lot of evidence of Gnostics actually being persecuted by orthodox Christians). But when you look at Gnostic texts and you look at the writings of Irenaeus and other opponents of Gnosticism, the descriptions by the “orthodox” match up fairly well for the most part, and their arguments are (in my opinion) generally sound.

I’m not sure what exactly was your point. These types of questions I find are usually asked to set up some bigger argument.

You have an overly suspicious mind. Try to understand that I’m actually interested in a substantive discussion of truth. I asked a reasonable question, willing to follow the argument wherever it led. It’s true that (given your previous posts) I have not so far been surprised as to where it led.

 

[Contarini]

I am not sure what type of Anglicanism you adhere to.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church and have been since 1998. I currently attend the Church of Christ the King in the Diocese of Northern Indiana.

But apparently you are quite unhappy with the general American Episcopal church.

I don’t agree with everything TEC does, true. I don’t particularly like the general way that the Episcopal Church seems to construct its identity these days. I find it triumphalistic and smug, when Anglican history gives us little basis for such attitudes (I don’t like Catholic triumphalism either, but I find it more understandable and tolerable, partly because I think it has more of a basis, and partly because the triumphalism of one’s own is a lot harder to put up with). But at the end of the day I recognize that all churches are filled with sinful human beings, including myself, and that the church has been goofing up in pretty spectacular ways for 2000 years. So I don’t share the attitude of some conservative Anglicans that the Episcopal Church is somehow uniquely evil or corrupt.

May I presume you disfavor women

I presume you mean “the ordination of women,” though given some of your posts I suppose it’s not totally uncharitable to fear that you might actually confuse disfavoring women’s ordination with disfavoring women. As a matter of fact I don’t disfavor women at all (!), and I find the theological arguments for the ordination of women convincing. I gladly accept women as priests and bishops. I think that the ordination of women was not done in a manner that showed respect for Christian tradition and for the universal Church. But perhaps this is how the universal Church discerns these things–by some parts of the Church rushing ahead and testing the waters.

and gay ordination?

I think that in principle candidates for ordination should be required either to be celibate or to have only one living spouse (who by definition must be of the opposite sex). However, I don’t think the Church stands or falls on this, and since we don’t seem to have a problem with divorced and remarried clergy it’s probably unfair to impose a harsher standard on gay people.

Certainly a person’s sexual orientation should not in itself be a barrier to ordination.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I started a response to this yesterday and it got lost. Since I responded to your more recent post I thought I should respond to this. And hopefully I can do so more charitably than I did the first time!

Contarini;4830843:

No, we haven’t “always” held to the amoral and unprincipled pragmatism you are defending. Many of us still don’t.

Of course not you are interjecting your personal opinion

Note: I don’t think that labeling something “your personal opinion” makes it irrelevant to me, and I don’t think that labeling it “my personal opinion” makes it immune from criticism. Don’t you want to have opinions that are sound and well-grounded? Don’t you want your opinions to be challenged when they are unsound?

“amoral and unprincipled” ROFL. Come down off the high horse there guy!

My rhetoric was over the top, but what I meant was that being “useful” shouldn’t be the primary criterion. We might decide that something was “useful” that was false or evil, or that something wasn’t “useful” even though it was true and good. In fact, I think that’s exactly what happened at the Reformation, but at least the Reformers weren’t *deliberately *using “usefulness” as their main criterion. We are prone enough to distort things based on what we find convenient without doing so on purpose.

Perhaps the best response would have been to ask “useful for what”?

I guess we practice rather different forms of Anglicanism. I can only speak to mine of course, and leave yours to you.

Well, that doesn’t really work. Not only do we both belong to the Episcopal Church, but more importantly we both belong to the Universal Church, the Body of Christ. That makes us accountable for each other, whether we like it or not.

Goodness that is uncalled for. Our sister church in Swaziland helped us to understand why there is opposition to homosexual union, by explaining how missionaries taught them originally. They feel that now those teaching are being turned upside down. We taught them incorrectly in the first place.

How do you know this? What if we were right the first time, and the Africans just aren’t as swept away by certain currents of modern culture as we are?

Do we “own” their Christian faith just because we taught it to them originally? If we don’t, then we need to be open to the possibility that they are right, don’t we?

I have every expectation that the African church will continue to show us new and wonderful ways of expressing our faith. They bring wonderful gifts to the table. You misunderstand my remarks completely.

I was too harsh, and I’m sorry. But I don’t think I misunderstood you completely, because you appear to think that you can dismiss certain African ideas as being irrelevant because they were originally learned from Western missionaries. This implies that Africans are too stupid to think critically about the faith they have received, while we have seen through our own past errors. It may of course be true that we have come to see some things more clearly while they remain overly attached to what they were one taught. But we can’t assume this (the reverse could just as easily be true). The ideas have to be examined on their own merits, so the issue of their origin in missionary teaching is irrelevant–and because irrelevant, it remains patronizing if not racist.

 

[Contarini]

AGain, I guess we have parish approaches. We rely on scripture, tradition and reason.

So do we all. No disagreement there. Just how these are to be applied is a different matter. I adhere to the teaching of historic Anglicanism that Scripture is primary and of absolute and final authority in matters of faith and morals, but must of course be *interpreted *by the rules of right reason through the lens of historic Christian tradition (which also has a lot to say on nonessential matters where Scripture is silent or unclear).

Dogma plays no part in our teaching as such.

Perhaps I should ask you to define “dogma”? I have encountered this idea that Anglicans don’t have dogma before. As I understand it, dogma is the unchangeable, essential body of teaching on which the Christian faith rests, best summarized in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Is this the dogma you don’t believe in?

I don’t judge your parish wrong

Presumably you should. Take for instance the matter of homosexuality. I suspect that people in my parish have different views on this (as in most Episcopal parishes), but the priest expresses a generally conservative view (i.e., he doesn’t think Gene Robinson should have been consecrated, and doesn’t think that homosexual unions can simply be recognized as just as natural and legitimate as heterosexual marriage), and probably most of us agree with him (we don’t interrogate people on the subject, but we’re in a small Midwestern town and are a generally conservative bunch–usually when people criticize the priest it’s because he doesn’t fit their political/social conservatism, as when he criticizes the Iraq war or refuses to join the outcry in support of teaching the Bible to the local public school children in school hours). Now you said above that the teaching European missionaries gave the Africans was incorrect. If a parish still holds to this teaching, you must think that this parish is wrong, surely? And furthermore you ought to want us to think differently. If a gay person comes to my church and hears my priest state his position on these matters (though this doesn’t happen too often, I should say), won’t this harm the gay person in your opinion? (Shucks, the main reason I have doubts about my own views on this issue is for fear that it harms gay people by contributing to their self-loathing and alienating them from the Christian faith. Surely you should care at least as much about this as I do.)

This is the problem I have with your views. You don’t seem to think them through logically. You say things that sound compassionate and tolerant, but they don’t make sense, and you don’t seem to care about this. I’m a lot more bothered by this than by the fact that substantively I disagree with you. If we both seek truth with all our might, no doubt we can help each other even in our disagreements. But if you don’t even care about truth, then we really have a problem.

Edwin

 

[elgar]

We can’t even agree on what the truth is. It comes down to the individual to define. TEC is very fuzzy on this. The RCC is not.

 

[josie_L]

Some Catholics seem fond of claiming that the Episcopal or Anglican church was “founded by a flawed monarch…” This is done as some form of derision of course. The fact is that nothing changed after Henry took on the headship of the church. It was the same catholic church, it just didn’t any longer look to the Pope as head any more. It retained for the most part the same liturgy and teachings. Over time of course, some things changed, as it obviously would as theologians and church officials found some practices not supported by scripture, as well as finding some Orthodox practices no longer in play in the RCC did in fact comport with scripture.

In any case, Henry set up no church, he simple removed the Pope as head of it. It really is time that some Catholics get over this inaccurate and argument provoking claim.

Would we not be better served by serious discussion on real issues rather than posturing like children?

If it was the same Catholic Church (and nothing had changed as you suggest) King Henry had an odd way of showing it. He persecuted and martyred many Catholics, he stripped and gutted Monasteries/Abbeys of all their possessions and took away Church lands, he left countless of the Religious homeless, and left many others (the poor who depended on the services of the religious orders, and the tenants who lived on Church lands) without recourse. I would suggest a lot had changed once King Henry XIII made himself “Pope”. And he was a flawed Monarch, he was selfish and tyrannical.

 

[GKC]

If it was the same Catholic Church (and nothing had changed as you suggest) King Henry had an odd way of showing it. He persecuted and martyred many Catholics, he stripped and gutted Monasteries/Abbeys of all their possessions and took away Church lands, he left countless of the Religious homeless, and left many others (the poor who depended on the services of the religious orders, and the tenants who lived on Church lands) without recourse. I would suggest a lot had changed once King Henry XIII made himself “Pope”. And he was a flawed Monarch, he was selfish and tyrannical.

But doctrinally, during his lifetime, he left the Church pretty much the same, other than making himself head. Not completely the same, but close.

Henry was a fascinating train wreck. I always suggest reading Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII, for an understanding of the man and the times. History is complicated, but interesting.

GKC

 

[elgar]

If it was the same Catholic Church (and nothing had changed as you suggest) King Henry had an odd way of showing it. He persecuted and martyred many Catholics, he stripped and gutted Monasteries/Abbeys of all their possessions and took away Church lands, he left countless of the Religious homeless, and left many others (the poor who depended on the services of the religious orders, and the tenants who lived on Church lands) without recourse. I would suggest a lot had changed once King Henry XIII made himself “Pope”. And he was a flawed Monarch, he was selfish and tyrannical.

Henry VIII was a self-centered, greedy despot who was used to having things his way. After having visited Fountains and Glastonbury Abbeys and seeing the mass destruction, I must admit my view of our founder changed forever.

I think most history books don’t go into depth concerning the fallout that ensued from the sacking and pillaging. Religious were thrown out into the street and much of the non-ruins became homes to the protestant elite of the day.

When I joined ECUSA I purposely avoided all the Henry stuff thinking it really didn’t matter and in some respects I still believe that. Good can and does come out of bad. The recent scandal with the Legion of Christ with their founder Fr. Maciel and knowing now all the terrible things he did, however there are some very good religious vocations that have sprung out of his organization. They just need to regroup and go on.

In some respects what Henry did reminds me of what the Presiding Bishop of TEC is doing right now to non-approving Orthodox who want to leave with their properties. Early on there were parishes able to negotiate with their bishops, but Katharine and her legal minions have since cut off any chance of this, including not allowing those leaving to buy back the property. She has no canonical authority, but she has intimidated her underlings. She is more than willing, however, to sell to secular groups. There are numerous examples of restaurants pubs and night clubs that were once Episcopal churches.