The Pope says one thing and does another.

[East_Anglican]

During the Popes recent visit to the UK he had a meeting with Rowen Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was claimed that their joint statement was historic when it really wasn’t. They said that the two churches should unite against secularism. First of all that’s what members of both churches within these islands have been saying for at least the last twenty years. They managed to state the blindinglly obvious.

I concur that secularism still isn’t the issue with the Pope otherwise he would allow Anglicans to recieve the sacrament in his churches. He said we should unite against secularism when to him the issue is still a triviality like transubstantiation or something.

It sounds like historic unforgiveness to me.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

During the Popes recent visit to the UK he had a meeting with Rowen Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was claimed that their joint statement was historic when it really wasn’t. They said that the two churches should unite against secularism. First of all that’s what members of both churches within these islands have been saying for at least the last twenty years. They managed to state the blindinglly obvious.

I concur that secularism still isn’t the issue with the Pope otherwise he would allow Anglicans to recieve the sacrament in his churches. He said we should unite against secularism when to him the issue is still a triviality like transubstantiation or something.

It sounds like historic unforgiveness to me.

The reason that communion is not supposed to be taken by non-Catholics (of any stripe) is a protest against the division of the body of Christ. To permit non-Catholics to do so would be an express admission that His body can remain divided. It won’t happen, unless the churches reunite under the Pope.

If it comes to that, why can’t the Anglicans return the churches they took from the Catholic Church, as a gesture of forgiving good will?

Extract from Wikipedia -

“The Dissolution of the Monasteries, sometimes referred to as the Suppression of the Monasteries, was the administrative and legal processes between 1536 and 1541 by which Henry VIII disbanded monasteries, priories, convents and friaries in England, Wales and Ireland; appropriated their income, disposed of their assets and provided for their former members. He was given the authority to do this in England and Wales by the Act of Supremacy, passed by Parliament in 1534, which made him Supreme Head of the Church in England, thus separating England from Papal authority; and by the First Suppression Act (1536) and the Second Suppression Act (1539). Although some monastic foundations dated back to Anglo-Saxon England, the overwhelming majority of the 825 religious communities dissolved by Henry VIII owed their existence to the wave of monastic enthusiasm that had swept England and Wales in the 11th and 12th centuries; in consequence of which religious houses in the 16th century controlled appointment to about a third of all parish benefices, and disposed of about half of all ecclesiastical income. The dissolution still represents the largest legally enforced transfer of property in English history since the Norman Conquest.”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If it comes to that, why can’t the Anglicans return the churches they took from the Catholic Church, as a gesture of forgiving good will?

In reality that isn’t going to happen.

It depends on when time period you’re talking about. Henry VIII didn’t take them from the Catholic Church, he removed them from papal authority. There was no such thing as Anglicanism in his day. Edward VI’s reign started the process towards the creation of the Church of England. Mary I fully restored Catholicism and papal authority. Then Elizabeth I really moved the process from the Catholic Church in England to the creation of the non-Catholic Church of England.

Extract from Wikipedia -

“The Dissolution of the Monasteries, sometimes referred to as the Suppression of the Monasteries, was the administrative and legal processes between 1536 and 1541 by which Henry VIII disbanded monasteries, priories, convents and friaries in England, Wales and Ireland; appropriated their income, disposed of their assets and provided for their former members. He was given the authority to do this in England and Wales by the Act of Supremacy, passed by Parliament in 1534, which made him Supreme Head of the Church in England, thus separating England from Papal authority; and by the First Suppression Act (1536) and the Second Suppression Act (1539). Although some monastic foundations dated back to Anglo-Saxon England, the overwhelming majority of the 825 religious communities dissolved by Henry VIII owed their existence to the wave of monastic enthusiasm that had swept England and Wales in the 11th and 12th centuries; in consequence of which religious houses in the 16th century controlled appointment to about a third of all parish benefices, and disposed of about half of all ecclesiastical income. The dissolution still represents the largest legally enforced transfer of property in English history since the Norman Conquest.”

Regarding the monasteries dissolved there isn’t an awful lot to give back.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

An interesting take on history?!

 

[GKC]

In reality that isn’t going to happen.

It depends on when time period you’re talking about. Henry VIII didn’t take them from the Catholic Church, he removed them from papal authority. There was no such thing as Anglicanism in his day. Edward VI’s reign started the process towards the creation of the Church of England. Mary I fully restored Catholicism and papal authority. Then Elizabeth I really moved the process from the Catholic Church in England to the creation of the non-Catholic Church of England.

Regarding the monasteries dissolved there isn’t an awful lot to give back.

And, in Mary Tudor’s day, it was tacitly agreed that no effort would be made to restore Church property.

GKC

 

[GKC]

History is complicated.

GKC

 

[Matthew_Holford]

And, in Mary Tudor’s day, it was tacitly agreed that no effort would be made to restore Church property.

GKC

Uhm, Mary may have been a good Catholic but she wasn’t going to empty her coffers to restore all that loot to the monasteries.

 

[tundramom]

I am reading a fascinating book by William Cobbett entitled “A History Of The Protestant Reformation In England and Ireland”. I highly recommend it.

Steph
(I am fascinated by the Tudor reign… It seems a turning point in history)

 

[Janet1983]

The reason that communion is not supposed to be taken by non-Catholics (of any stripe) is a protest against the division of the body of Christ. To permit non-Catholics to do so would be an express admission that His body can remain divided. It won’t happen, unless the churches reunite under the Pope.

That sounds like saying “ecumenism is dead” to me… There is a growing movement for ecumenism, especially within families in Germany. More and more people are participating in a movement towards celebrating the last supper together. On one of the ecumenical conventions it actually did happen (and the participating priests were punished). The voice of the people in Germany however is very supportive of the idea.
I don’t believe that any Protestant church would be going ahead and all go under the pope. You can’t undo what has happened hundreds of years ago and has manifested itself over such a long time.

 

[GKC]

I am reading a fascinating book by William Cobbett entitled “A History Of The Protestant Reformation In England and Ireland”. I highly recommend it.

Steph
(I am fascinated by the Tudor reign… It seems a turning point in history)

I am fascinated by the Tudor period, too. Like watching a train wreck, esp. Hank.

Cobbett was a favorite of Chesterton’s. But I’d certainly read something more contemporary, as to the Reformation.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Uhm, Mary may have been a good Catholic but she wasn’t going to empty her coffers to restore all that loot to the monasteries.

The decision was as taken between Pole, Phillip II, Rome, and Mary. Her assuming the throne was not univerally greeted with acclamation, and the confiscated lands were mainly in the hands of the ruling class, by then, used by Henry to buy support and finance various kingly type things. It was wisely concluded that there were enough bumps in the road already, to attempt to add trying to untangle the ownership of the lost land/property. Sort of like the current mortgage mess, in a way.

GKC

 

[East_Anglican]

The reason that communion is not supposed to be taken by non-Catholics (of any stripe) is a protest against the division of the body of Christ.

Surely it’s a symbol of disunity to refuse the sacrament. Certain people on botrh sides want unity on their terms and that’s not going to happen.

 

[East_Anglican]

I agree wiith you on that and your point actully suports what I’m saying. The Lord knows who are his.

The Eucharist plays the same role in the Anglican Church. How it is the body and blood of Christ isn’t something most of us meditatre on while recieving it though is it?

 

[East_Anglican]

I now feel that the posts talking about the events in tudor times proves the point of my first post.

 

[Kaninchen]

During the Popes recent visit to the UK he had a meeting with Rowen Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was claimed that their joint statement was historic when it really wasn’t. They said that the two churches should unite against secularism. First of all that’s what members of both churches within these islands have been saying for at least the last twenty years. They managed to state the blindinglly obvious.

I concur that secularism still isn’t the issue with the Pope otherwise he would allow Anglicans to recieve the sacrament in his churches. He said we should unite against secularism when to him the issue is still a triviality like transubstantiation or something.

It sounds like historic unforgiveness to me.

On the other hand, it may just be that, while nobody has the slightest idea (beyond formulaic pronouncements and fulminations) about what to do about the indifference of most people in the UK to religion, there’s a tremendous history and to - and accumulated resources available for - religious infighting.

Much easier really.

 

[PJM]

=East Anglican;7172006]During the Popes recent visit to the UK he had a meeting with Rowen Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was claimed that their joint statement was historic when it really wasn’t. They said that the two churches should unite against secularism. First of all that’s what members of both churches within these islands have been saying for at least the last twenty years. They managed to state the blindinglly obvious.

I concur that secularism still isn’t the issue with the Pope otherwise he would allow Anglicans to recieve the sacrament in his churches. He said we should unite against secularism when to him the issue is still a triviality like transubstantiation or something.

It sounds like historic unforgiveness to me.

Sory friend but I don’t se the point of your statement being verifible.

Your [and others like you] lack of understanding of Transubstanuation is a critial lack of understanding of Divine Will and Dvine being.

Simply because one chooses freely to deny it; does not; cannot change it’s truth. The core issues have NOTHING TO DOwith “forgiveness” and EVERYTHING to do with TRUTH!

 

[BernadetteM]

When I was growing up the Episcopal church had closed communion. I would assume that is also true of the Anglican Communion in general.

Also many Lutheran churches deny communion to others, even other Lutherans who are not in the same synod.

Most Anglicans don’t believe in the literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They believe in some type of Presence. Usually only the Anglo Catholics believe the same way as Catholics and Orthodox.

At this point in time the Anglican Communion is in such a mess. You can believe antything or nothing and be an Anglican. Just read about what has happened to the Episcopal church in the US.

England is very secular and so are many of the Euopean countries. The US is going the same way.

Actually the Church is trying to save protestants from damning their souls by refusing them to receive Communion. The Bible says not to take the Eucharist unworthingly, that would be having sins on your soul and not believing that your receiving the True Body and Blood of our Lord. I wouldn’t dream of taking communion in any church as it isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ and usually just a symbol and I would also be legitimazing that their communion is true.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[tundramom]

I am fascinated by the Tudor period, too. Like watching a train wreck, esp. Hank.

Cobbett was a favorite of Chesterton’s. But I’d certainly read something more contemporary, as to the Reformation.

GKC

Do you have a suggestion for a read? It is like watching a train wreck, isn’t it?
Steph

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The worst facet of the Church of England is that it was and is a state-run religion. That in itself is terrifying. Can you imagine Obama and Pelosi and Reed appointing bishops in the Church of the United States if there were such an animal? yuck. We’d probably have everything from Archbishop Oprah to Bishop Rahm Emmanuel to Archbishop Jerry Springer.

I don’t trust governments a lot so I can’t imagine with the secular tides of liberal progressivism the appointments to the episcopacy! Then the rest of the Anglican world came from this state religion and they have had their cords cut from the mother and are now just rebellious and naughty. TEC is the spoiled child who joined a hippie commune. ACNA is the somewhat more conservative younger brother in an identity crisis. The continuers are a bunch of catholicky nieces and nephews in tiny numbers and are not generally known by most. There are floating bishops, attachments to Africa and South America, contradicting theology, a pageantry of confusion. It’s weird. Really weird being an Anglican. It’s like joining a religious magical mystery tour!

When I was growing up the Episcopal church had closed communion. I would assume that is also true of the Anglican Communion in general.

Also many Lutheran churches deny communion to others, even other Lutherans who are not in the same synod.

Most Anglicans don’t believe in the literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They believe in some type of Presence. Usually only the Anglo Catholics believe the same way as Catholics and Orthodox.

At this point in time the Anglican Communion is in such a mess. You can believe antything or nothing and be an Anglican. Just read about what has happened to the Episcopal church in the US.

England is very secular and so are many of the Euopean countries. The US is going the same way.

Actually the Church is trying to save protestants from damning their souls by refusing them to receive Communion. The Bible says not to take the Eucharist unworthingly, that would be having sins on your soul and not believing that your receiving the True Body and Blood of our Lord. I wouldn’t dream of taking communion in any church as it isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ and usually just a symbol and I would also be legitimazing that their communion is true.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

Do you have a suggestion for a read? It is like watching a train wreck, isn’t it?
Steph

Yes. And I’m an Anglican.

If you like Cobbett’s approach, (Chesterton tries hard to defend him as an amateur historian who gets it right), I’d suggest Belloc. HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED and CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION. I don’t agree with Belloc, either, but he’s a delight to read. One of my favorite people.

For a ponderous academic approach, Diarmaid MacCulloch’s THE REFORMATION.

And, as I always recommend, for the best book on Henry VIII, J.J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC