Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

British Anglicans Preparing Mass Defection to Roman Catholic Church
FOXnews ^

Posted on 01/30/2011 2:26:12 PM PST by fabrizio

LONDON -- Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported.

It follows a campaign by a former Anglican bishop in protest at its stance on the ordination of women and gay clergy.

Father Keith Newton has encouraged Anglicans to join the Ordinariate -- a special branch of Catholicism established by the Pope -- to welcome protestant defectors.

Despite the efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglo Catholics have begun leaving following the conversion of three Anglican bishops in mid-January.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: anglicans; catholic; churchofengland; coe; homosexualagenda; opusdei; romesweethome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last
To: sockmonkey; RichInOC
A man's faith, or indeed his lack of it, is his own concern, a matter between himself and God. So if these people feel they should join with Rome, that is for them to decide. If they draw closer to God as a result, how can anyone say that is wrong?

However, all this Catholic triumphalism is NOT helping matters.

121 posted on 01/31/2011 2:45:55 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

Well said. There is a world of difference between being equal and being the same. There is all the difference in the world between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.


122 posted on 01/31/2011 2:49:40 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: livius
He didn’t favor Spain over England for any reason except that Henry was simply wrong.<>p> Yeah, yeah.

It was just when, like Luther, he ran into something the Church wasn’t willing to allow...

Like selling indulgences?

123 posted on 01/31/2011 3:00:43 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

he was more ruthless because he needed to be. A son guarantees the succession. A daughter promptly invites the question “who does she marry?”. The Kingdom had nearly torn itself to pieces over disputes to the succession barely fifty years previously. No one was anxious to repeat the experience.


124 posted on 01/31/2011 3:17:03 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

If you alternate which leg to stand on and cross yourself every 13th syllable (not word) it brings you faster into God’s grace.


125 posted on 01/31/2011 3:19:49 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Quite so, but I would add that its not all down to Henry. The simple fact is that there was a lot of popular support for his actions amongst the English population as a whole. Even an absolutist king would not have been able to make the break with Rome without that. Ordinary people resented the economic and political power of the Catholic Church. Intellectuals derided its corruption. The reformation was in full swing and theologians were beginning to really look at what they were saying. It was a time of great flux.


126 posted on 01/31/2011 3:25:55 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
"If you alternate which leg to stand on and cross yourself every 13th syllable (not word) it brings you faster into God’s grace. "

Really? I always thought you had to spend years and years studying only to mindlessly repeat stuff over and over, like a head banger, to a guy wearing curtains.

127 posted on 01/31/2011 3:57:47 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Divorce and annulment are not the same thing.

Deliberately confusing the two is like confusing miscarriage and abortion.


128 posted on 01/31/2011 4:18:38 AM PST by agere_contra (Historically every time the Left has 'expanded its moral imagination' the results have been horrific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

lol !!!!!!!!!!


129 posted on 01/31/2011 4:27:23 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

It was indeed a time of ‘great flux’, mostly in the laws of property.

The Protestant schism in England led almost immediately to the theft of immense amounts of land by the nobles and the King. It was one of the greatest transferals of wealth in history. All the great estates of England began at that time.

The schism was led by greed. Greed for power and for somebody else’s wealth.


130 posted on 01/31/2011 4:29:02 AM PST by agere_contra (Historically every time the Left has 'expanded its moral imagination' the results have been horrific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

That’s a common misconception. The years of studying are in fact optional, and actually the guy is wearing a toga.


131 posted on 01/31/2011 4:29:48 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Why does that matter? Do you think that the acquisition and maintainance of earthly wealth is what the Catholic Church should be concerned with? Theft is a strong word. Particularly as the Church attained much of that wealth in some decidedly dubuious dealings. I happen to live near one of the great Monasteries of medieval England. The holy brothers expanded their holdings with all the skill of modern day monopolists. Peasants were forcibly evicted so they could develop their profitable wool industry. They had castles and maintained armies to protect their "rights".

The schism was led by greed alright. A recognition of the greed of a corrupt institution that trampled over the people it was supposed to be in pastoral care of.

132 posted on 01/31/2011 4:43:03 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru
Plus Hnery VIII wanted an annullment because he suddenly thought that his entire marriage had been invalid and therefore reduced his wife Katherine of Aragon to an unwitting concubine and his daughter Mary illegitimate. Then in the end the Church of England simply became a vehicle for an easy annulment/divorce whenever Henry got tired of his wives. The Church at that point was just a religious organization suited to make laws for the convenience of the monarch’s lifestyle choices.

Good thing that Henry was dead and gone before Joseph Smith arrived on the scene, or all of England would be Mormon...
133 posted on 01/31/2011 4:57:51 AM PST by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Your bizarre calumnies notwithstanding, the monasteries accumulated their wealth over centuries. They accumulated it by rents, purchase and deed of gift, and as honestly as anyone on this forum.

The Benedictine vow of ‘conversion of life’ is not a vow of poverty. Even if it was, their wealth would not be an excuse for theft.

You cheer the theft of justly-acquired property on a Conservative forum - nice way to out yourself. Obama can make you his Righteous Confiscation Czar.

The Anglican Schism was an excuse to steal immense wealth. The great estates of England were built upon that act of primordial theft.


134 posted on 01/31/2011 4:59:07 AM PST by agere_contra (Historically every time the Left has 'expanded its moral imagination' the results have been horrific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Tragic that for his trouble - and for being Anne Boleyn’s chaplain - Katherine + Henry’s daughter Mary had Cranmer burned at the stake.


135 posted on 01/31/2011 6:01:06 AM PST by Belle22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
All that sort of trifling talk does is make you look ridiculous.

Abp Fulton Sheen of blessed memory had it right -- if the Church were in fact what all the ignorant detractors say it is, we would all hate it too.

If you really want to know something and are not just sniping with no desire to learn, ask away!

136 posted on 01/31/2011 6:21:01 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Belle22
My daddy says, he may have changed his mind but at least he died game.

I think he let his immense learning and curiosity run away with him in a very, very troubled and confusing time of English history. There was plenty of opportunism, bad motives, and just plain meanness on both sides.

And that, of course, is why Elizabeth I created the Anglican Church in the first place -- it was a political solution to a pressing (and deadly) political problem.

So long as England was of one mind religiously, it was able to survive. Now that churchgoing Anglicans are a shrinking minority and secularists and Muslims are ruling the roost, the Anglican Church has no support and it will implode. In fact, it's imploding as we watch.

137 posted on 01/31/2011 6:24:59 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
That isn't true.

Read The Stripping of the Altars, Eamon Duffy's splendid book. The Reformation in England was imposed top-down on a largely unwilling populace, which reacted with great unhappiness to the destruction of their churches, monasteries and religious foundations. The bourgeoisie of London supported it, but it got away from them. Revolutions so often do.

Surely you realize that Elizabeth I's Poor Law was a stop-gap attempt to fill the vacuum left when all the charitable works of the Church were destroyed? Henry took the money and abandoned all the poor, sick and disabled that the Church had cared for.

138 posted on 01/31/2011 6:38:44 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Amen!

Consider that I thought I was receiving Communion for 35 years or so . . . how embarrassing! :-D

139 posted on 01/31/2011 6:42:31 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Your bizarre calumnies notwithstanding, the monasteries accumulated their wealth over centuries.

I didn't deny they accumulated their wealth over centuries, so what have my "bizarre calumnies" got to do with that? You don't get to dismiss them by alleging they deny an obvious fact. Can you deny the accusations? I know the monks forced peasants off land to turn over to sheep pasturage. I've seen the documents.

They accumulated it by rents, purchase and deed of gift, and as honestly as anyone on this forum.

Only if the people on this forum are snake oil salesmen. Sure they had rents and purchases and gifts. Nothing wrong with that (although they didn't pay tax on them, which gave them an unfair economic advantage) But they also sold indulgences and falsified holy relics, and used their secular power to get what they wanted. I've seen their castles and their law courts. Power corrupts. It doesn't matter if it is wielded by kings or monks or senators.

The Benedictine vow of ‘conversion of life’ is not a vow of poverty. Even if it was, their wealth would not be an excuse for theft.

It is certainly a vow of simple living, if followed to the letter. Very few of them were following it to the letter though, certainly in the sixteenth century. And you keep on using this word theft. It's confiscation, based on them not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

You cheer the theft of justly-acquired property on a Conservative forum - nice way to out yourself. Obama can make you his Righteous Confiscation Czar.

No, I do not cheer the theft of justly-acquired property because I do not consider that it was justly-acquired, and certainly not justly-retained. That is the point of the argument I was putting forward. Your attempt to dismiss my argument by equating it to our modern day situation is quite reprehensible.

The Anglican Schism was an excuse to steal immense wealth.

That is a pretty bizarre calumny in itself. Of course some people (Henry especially) did very well out of the dissolution of the monasteries, but to say that dissolving a corrupt, decadent and certainly declining institution was solely an excuse to steal money is an insult of epic proportions to the honest convictions of a great many dedicated reformers. You can argue they were wrong, or even used by the people in charge, but don't deny them their belief by saying it was "all for money". It clearly wasn't. Enough of them put their lives on the line.

140 posted on 01/31/2011 7:19:38 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson