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 ...
However, all this Catholic triumphalism is NOT helping matters.
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.
It was just when, like Luther, he ran into something the Church wasn’t willing to allow...
Like selling indulgences?
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.
If you alternate which leg to stand on and cross yourself every 13th syllable (not word) it brings you faster into God’s grace.
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.
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.
Divorce and annulment are not the same thing.
Deliberately confusing the two is like confusing miscarriage and abortion.
lol !!!!!!!!!!
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.
That’s a common misconception. The years of studying are in fact optional, and actually the guy is wearing a toga.
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.
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.
Tragic that for his trouble - and for being Anne Boleyn’s chaplain - Katherine + Henry’s daughter Mary had Cranmer burned at the stake.
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!
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.
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.
Consider that I thought I was receiving Communion for 35 years or so . . . how embarrassing! :-D
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.
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.