Steven P. BarrettWORLDWIDE ANGLICAN COMMUNION: HENRY VIII's Ch of ENGLAND CRUMBLES FURTHER
July 7th 2008 05:52
Steven Barrett
REMEMBER THIS GUY? IT'S NONE OTHER THAN KING HENRY VIII. HE STARTED THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SO HE COULD OBTAIN A DIVORCE FROM HIS LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE, KATHERINE OF ARAGON SO HE COULD MARRY ANN BOLEYN AND HIS WOES BEGAN ALL BECAUSE HE SOUGHT A MALE HEIR TO THE THRONE.
RIGHT NOW HE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S LEFT OF HIS CHURCH THAT' SUPPOSED TO BE RUN BY MEN STILL RUN BY MEN WHO KNOW HOW TO BE MEN.
The Church of England is clearly falling on its face when several conservative Anglican bishops travelled to Rome to speak with the Vatican in hopes of "building closer ties" with the Catholic Church -- which was the ONLY church in England prior to Henry's break over the issue of getting a divorce. Let the record be forever known or at least reminded here, that the Catholic Church stayed consistent with Jesus' admonitions against divorce, save for grounds of adultery. And since Henry's acts were far more egregious, he had no grounds to stand on against the Papacy. Therefore, unlike the Anglicans -- as they came to be known -- and thousands and thousands of other protestant denominations, non-denominations and sects -- the Catholic Church was willing to stick by Christ so faithfully that in doing so, it was willing to lose the entire English-speaking world.
For Henry, it was always seeking a solution to meet the day, to satiate his power; whereas with Rome it was always seeking ways to bring back the wayward without sacrificing higher principles.
And in fairness to the millions of Anglicans who for the past five centuries nevertheless maintained many of the same essential religious and moral principles as the Catholic Church -- to which they never quite had the desire to remove themselves so distantly and forcefully as their Puritan counterparts -- it must be said that recent events can't be anything but a horrible heartache. Even Henry, a man's man if there ever was one -- would take strong action to stop what's happening nowadays.
Henry was far from a saint, and he had a curious notion that despite his horrible mistreatment of his wives and women in general, not to mention the monks, nuns and the pillaging of their landholdings (at the behest of grubby pro-Calvinist nobles) -- he was still a "Catholic" since he went to Mass regularly and honored the old traditions. (Rome wasn't anymore impressed by that than his majesty's newly Protestanized noble lackeys. He was too powerful to criticize him on that, especially while public was still very loyal to Catholicism. All he had to do was turn the crowds against THEM.)
But there's no way in hell he'd stand by and allow for the consecration of an openly gay bishop, women priests, women bishops and "marriage ceremonies" performed for homosexuals in churches. He'd have the London Tower grounds squishing in blood!
Well, nobody's calling for that. But some bishops and six hundred, yes -- six hundred priests are saying if the synod going on in York elects a woman as bishop -- THEY'RE WALKING for safer grounds.
Here are some portions from the Telegraph.coUK's story.
Who do you think Henry would have more respect for nowadays? I wouldn't lay any odds for the self-diminishing but ever so erudite scholar on the left, Anglican Abp. Rowan Williams.
REMEMBER THIS GUY? IT'S NONE OTHER THAN KING HENRY VIII. HE STARTED THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SO HE COULD OBTAIN A DIVORCE FROM HIS LEGALLY WEDDED WIFE, KATHERINE OF ARAGON SO HE COULD MARRY ANN BOLEYN AND HIS WOES BEGAN ALL BECAUSE HE SOUGHT A MALE HEIR TO THE THRONE.
King Henry VIII of England
RIGHT NOW HE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S LEFT OF HIS CHURCH THAT' SUPPOSED TO BE RUN BY MEN STILL RUN BY MEN WHO KNOW HOW TO BE MEN.
The Church of England is clearly falling on its face when several conservative Anglican bishops travelled to Rome to speak with the Vatican in hopes of "building closer ties" with the Catholic Church -- which was the ONLY church in England prior to Henry's break over the issue of getting a divorce. Let the record be forever known or at least reminded here, that the Catholic Church stayed consistent with Jesus' admonitions against divorce, save for grounds of adultery. And since Henry's acts were far more egregious, he had no grounds to stand on against the Papacy. Therefore, unlike the Anglicans -- as they came to be known -- and thousands and thousands of other protestant denominations, non-denominations and sects -- the Catholic Church was willing to stick by Christ so faithfully that in doing so, it was willing to lose the entire English-speaking world.
For Henry, it was always seeking a solution to meet the day, to satiate his power; whereas with Rome it was always seeking ways to bring back the wayward without sacrificing higher principles.
And in fairness to the millions of Anglicans who for the past five centuries nevertheless maintained many of the same essential religious and moral principles as the Catholic Church -- to which they never quite had the desire to remove themselves so distantly and forcefully as their Puritan counterparts -- it must be said that recent events can't be anything but a horrible heartache. Even Henry, a man's man if there ever was one -- would take strong action to stop what's happening nowadays.
Henry was far from a saint, and he had a curious notion that despite his horrible mistreatment of his wives and women in general, not to mention the monks, nuns and the pillaging of their landholdings (at the behest of grubby pro-Calvinist nobles) -- he was still a "Catholic" since he went to Mass regularly and honored the old traditions. (Rome wasn't anymore impressed by that than his majesty's newly Protestanized noble lackeys. He was too powerful to criticize him on that, especially while public was still very loyal to Catholicism. All he had to do was turn the crowds against THEM.)
But there's no way in hell he'd stand by and allow for the consecration of an openly gay bishop, women priests, women bishops and "marriage ceremonies" performed for homosexuals in churches. He'd have the London Tower grounds squishing in blood!
Well, nobody's calling for that. But some bishops and six hundred, yes -- six hundred priests are saying if the synod going on in York elects a woman as bishop -- THEY'RE WALKING for safer grounds.
Here are some portions from the Telegraph.coUK's story.
The disclosure comes on the eve of a critical vote as members of the General Synod – the Church's parliament – prepare to decide whether to allow women to be bishops without giving concessions to staunch opponents.
Up to 600 clergy gave warning in a letter to Dr Williams that they may leave the Church unless they receive a legal right to havens within the Church free of women bishops.
"Clearly the ordination of women as bishops would divide the Church of England even more fundamentally than the ordination of women as priests," it says.
"This issue is one which touches all members of the Church of England and not just those with synodical voting rights. In the light of this we are convinced that some form of separate identities will be required to enable the holders of mutually incompatible convictions about the faith and order of the Church to remain in as high a degree of continuing fellowship as possible."
One bishop involved in the talks, who wished to remain anonymous, said he was left with no option. "The Church of England is becoming more and more like the American Church. Those of us who hold to traditional orthodoxy are very concerned about the direction it seems to be moving in." (emphasis mine)
The Anglican communion has been arguing over homosexuality since the American Church made Gene Robinson the first openly gay bishop and issued rites for same-sex unions. Conservatives are concerned that gay blessing services are being conducted in Britain and last month this newspaper revealed that a “wedding” ceremony was held for two gay priests. The issue of homosexual priests is likely to feature strongly at this month’s Lambeth Conference of worldwide Anglican bishops.
Now the Church of England is poised to endorse women bishops — a move that will seriously damage its relations with the Roman Catholic Church and could force hundreds of clergy to defect to Rome.
Another bishop said: "The internal pressure of the Anglican communion has pushed us apart and we’re committed to greater unity with Rome. There can be no future for Christianity in Europe without Rome."
Up to 600 clergy gave warning in a letter to Dr Williams that they may leave the Church unless they receive a legal right to havens within the Church free of women bishops.
"Clearly the ordination of women as bishops would divide the Church of England even more fundamentally than the ordination of women as priests," it says.
"This issue is one which touches all members of the Church of England and not just those with synodical voting rights. In the light of this we are convinced that some form of separate identities will be required to enable the holders of mutually incompatible convictions about the faith and order of the Church to remain in as high a degree of continuing fellowship as possible."
One bishop involved in the talks, who wished to remain anonymous, said he was left with no option. "The Church of England is becoming more and more like the American Church. Those of us who hold to traditional orthodoxy are very concerned about the direction it seems to be moving in." (emphasis mine)
The Anglican communion has been arguing over homosexuality since the American Church made Gene Robinson the first openly gay bishop and issued rites for same-sex unions. Conservatives are concerned that gay blessing services are being conducted in Britain and last month this newspaper revealed that a “wedding” ceremony was held for two gay priests. The issue of homosexual priests is likely to feature strongly at this month’s Lambeth Conference of worldwide Anglican bishops.
Now the Church of England is poised to endorse women bishops — a move that will seriously damage its relations with the Roman Catholic Church and could force hundreds of clergy to defect to Rome.
Another bishop said: "The internal pressure of the Anglican communion has pushed us apart and we’re committed to greater unity with Rome. There can be no future for Christianity in Europe without Rome."
Rowan WIlliams and Pope Benedict
Who do you think Henry would have more respect for nowadays? I wouldn't lay any odds for the self-diminishing but ever so erudite scholar on the left, Anglican Abp. Rowan Williams.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
The good news is that Kennedy's annulment has been revoked -- yanked. Were you also referring to another Kennedy, perhaps the younger brother who was going to be one of Joe's major campaign advisors in his dropped gubernatorial campaign -- who also on a ski slope? Unfortunately, I have no idea how that was resolved. I hope the Vatican let that appeal drop or if not, managed to somehow rescind/revoke it in a way so as to not bring up more pain for the young man's widow. It's one thing to prove a point, it's another to keep digging up old scores when such an act will bring more sorrow than resolution.
But I'm just speculating on that second Kennedy matter. Joe's annulment situation is well-known, however.
Obviously the Vatican's "under new management" and the results are increasingly positive. For all that Joseph Ratzinger was blamed for by the liberals for "turning back the clock" on Catholicism, etc. -- he wasn't the "dictator" or "grand inquisitor" everyone made him out to be -- nor was he really that interested in being a "powerhouse to be reckoned with" working behind the Pope's throne.
He merely interpreted Catholic doctrine for what it was and has been for 2,000 years and caught a lot of unholy hell for it. Incredibly, inasmuch as his efforts to make sure the church's teachings were taught uniformally, there were other and more bureaucratically and politically inclined forces working within the governing structure, in this case, the courts dealing with annulments. How else could anyone explain why a Kennedy's divorce could've gotten such a cushy treatment.
It should've been the opposite. Because he was a Kennedy -- the church should've stuck to its guns as hard as it did with Henry. He learned and regretted his mistakes, notwithstanding his use of the trappings of his crown to hide his regrets.
Had this kind of discipline been shown some fifteen years earlier -- along with a lot of other demonstrations of keeping a tight lid -- many of the horrible things done to kids and women which caused so much embarrassment, shame and scandal never would've happened.
I'd need ten blogs and a half to finish venting out my rants against what the Kumbaya Katholic Krappola Krowd did to my beloved Church. Better that people shake their fists at Her doors for being too tough than for what we've discovered to our horror the things that were done by people who were both morally and theologically too weak to begin with before they took orders, or participated in parish activities or taught in the various parochial schools, colleges and universities. THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND NONE TOO SOON.
Thanks to the INFLUENCE felt by the election of Joseph Ratzinger (and esp. guided by his famous anti-relativism preconclave homily) at Pope, the Vatican's tightening the screws and letting people know it in no uncertain terms. Annulments are harder to get.
The Catholic Church cannot give divorces anyway: only annulments and that for the injured party's benefit. Joe Kennedy was the injuring party. Divorces are matters for the state/commonwealth only. Catholic priests can and have had to recommend a couple to call it (legally) quits when one or the other spouse is dangerously out of control or so sexually incontinent as to cause great scandal to both parties and especially the kids, and we know what Jesus said about that. But canonically speaking, the couple still remains married in the eyes of the Church. This, is where annulments come in play because they deal with the final canonical determination if the union still has all the necessary parts (i.e. normal and conditions expected from a couple even under civil law for state-granted annulments.) The church grants annulments so the injured party, if he or she is a Catholic, may remarry and still be able to receive the Sacrament at Mass.
I regained my respect for the Church when I realized how much a part of Her was in me and wasn't going away. Nor, despite all the stupid things done by humans within and outside of Her to undermine Her authority, dignity, constancy of teachings, you name it, She was and remains the only Church founded by Christ and indeed, the gates of hell haven't opened yet.
But don't we do a damn good job at pryng them open to get a "peek." Just reading the stories about the Anglican Communion, or what'll be left of it, ought to be sufficient warning to anybody who cares about his or her Christian faith. Apparently enough US and Canadian and now UK Anglicans were all too eager to see what was available to them on the other side of that door they couldn't stop prying open.
Now they know ... but they can't seem to get that damn gate shut again.
As badly as some Catholics in this country and abroad have behaved, we haven't even come close to opening those gates -- and that's because the REAL LEADERS won't allow it now anymore than they have during the past 2,000 years, from happening.
Napoleon was asked incredulously by a top French cleric why he thought he could bring down the Catholic Church "...when we've done so many things ourselves and learned it's impossible."
At the risk of sounding "triumphaistic" what that Frenchman is saying, especially in light of what's happening to the Anglicans -- is that which God made when Jesus handed the keys to St. Peter is permanent: What Henry created to skirt around the law will eventually crumble as all institutions founded solely by human hands primarily to suit man's transitory desires (often masked as "needs.")
Some "needs," some results.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief